MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7105993569 · doi:10.2196/74196

Explainable AI for Predicting Mortality Risk in Metastatic Cancer: Retrospective Cohort Study Using the Memorial Sloan Kettering-Metastatic Dataset

2025· article· en· W7105993569 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cancer · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrospective cohort studyInteroperabilityHealth recordsHealth careCohort studyMEDLINERisk assessmentCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Metastatic cancer remains one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Yet, the prediction of survivability in this population remains limited by heterogeneous clinical presentations and high-dimensional molecular features. Advances in machine learning (ML) provide an opportunity to integrate diverse patient- and tumor-level factors into explainable predictive ML models. Leveraging large real-world datasets and modern ML techniques can enable improved risk stratification and precision oncology. Objective This study aimed to develop and interpret ML models for predicting overall survival in patients with metastatic cancer using the Memorial Sloan Kettering-Metastatic (MSK-MET) dataset and to identify key prognostic biomarkers through explainable artificial intelligence techniques. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of the MSK-MET cohort, comprising 25,775 patients across 27 tumor types. After data cleaning and balancing, 20,338 patients were included. Overall survival was defined as deceased versus living at last follow-up. Five classifiers (extreme gradient boosting [XGBoost], logistic regression, random forest, decision tree, and naive Bayes) were trained using an 80/20 stratified split and optimized via grid search with 5-fold cross-validation. Model performance was assessed using accuracy, area under the curve (AUC), precision, recall, and F1-score. Model explainability was achieved using Shapley additive explanations (SHAP). Survival analyses included Kaplan-Meier estimates, Cox proportional hazards models, and an XGBoost-Cox model for time-to-event prediction. The positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated at the Youden index–optimal threshold. Results XGBoost achieved the highest performance (accuracy=0.74; AUC=0.82), outperforming other classifiers. In survival analyses, the XGBoost-Cox model with a concordance index (C-index) of 0.70 exceeded the traditional Cox model (C-index=0.66). SHAP analysis and Cox models consistently identified metastatic site count, tumor mutational burden, fraction of genome altered, and the presence of distant liver and bone metastases as among the strongest prognostic factors, a pattern that held at both the pan-cancer level and recurrently across cancer-specific models. At the cancer-specific level, performance varied; prostate cancer achieved the highest predictive accuracy (AUC=0.88), while pancreatic cancer was notably more challenging (AUC=0.68). Kaplan-Meier analyses demonstrated marked survival separation between patients with and without metastases (80-month survival: approximately 0.80 vs 0.30). At the Youden-optimal threshold, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were approximately 70% and 80%, respectively, supporting clinical use for risk stratification. Conclusions Explainable ML models, particularly XGBoost combined with SHAP, can strongly predict survivability in metastatic cancers while highlighting clinically meaningful features. These findings support the use of ML-based tools for patient counseling, treatment planning, and integration into precision oncology workflows. Future work should include external validation on independent cohorts, integration with electronic health records via Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources–based dashboards, and prospective clinician-in-the-loop evaluation to assess real-world use.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR CancerSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207