Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29763967›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2018

Machine learning algorithms for outcome prediction in (chemo)radiotherapy: An empirical comparison of classifiers.

Timo M Deist, Frank J W M Dankers, Gilmer Valdes, Robin Wijsman, I-Chow Hsu, Cary Oberije, Tim Lustberg, Johan van Soest, Frank Hoebers, Arthur Jochems and 13 more

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT05151718 (Ependymomics), which is not on this map. Cited by 163 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
163citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
24.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05151718 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Ependymomics: Multiomic Approach to Radioresistance of Ependymomas in Children and Adolescents

TypeobservationalSponsorInstitut Claudius RegaudRan2021 to 2026Enrolled370ConditionsEpendymoma of Brain, Pediatric Solid Tumor
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

163 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 299 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

103 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Timo M DeistThe D-lab: Decision Support for Precision Medicine, GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Universiteitssingel 40, 6229 ER, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Frank J W M DankersDepartment of Radiation Oncology, GROW, School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Gilmer ValdesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Robin WijsmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
I-Chow HsuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Cary OberijeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, GROW, School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Tim LustbergDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW, School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Johan van SoestDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW, School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Frank HoebersDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW, School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Arthur JochemsThe D-lab: Decision Support for Precision Medicine, GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Universiteitssingel 40, 6229 ER, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Issam El NaqaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Leonard WeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW, School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Olivier MorinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
David R RaleighDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Wouter BotsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Johannes H KaandersDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
José BelderbosDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Margriet KwintDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Timothy SolbergDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
René MonshouwerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Johan BussinkDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Andre DekkerDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW, School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Philippe LambinThe D-lab: Decision Support for Precision Medicine, GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Universiteitssingel 40, 6229 ER, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
University of California, San Francisco · USMaastricht University · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLMaastro Clinic · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NLRadboud University Medical Center · NLThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

TREATMENT VERIFICATION AND TREATMENT PLAN REFINEMENTP01CA059827 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI BALTER, JAMES M, LAWRENCE, THEODORE S · 1993 to 2018
$37.9M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA059827
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMachine learning classification algorithms (classifiers) for prediction of treatment response are becoming more popular in radiotherapy literature. General Machine learning literature provides evidence in favor of some classifier families (random forest, support vector machine, gradient boosting) in terms of classification performance. The purpose of this study is to compare such classifiers specifically for (chemo)radiotherapy datasets and to estimate their average discriminative performance for radiation treatment outcome prediction.

methodsWe collected 12 datasets (3496 patients) from prior studies on post-(chemo)radiotherapy toxicity, survival, or tumor control with clinical, dosimetric, or blood biomarker features from multiple institutions and for different tumor sites, that is, (non-)small-cell lung cancer, head and neck cancer, and meningioma. Six common classification algorithms with built-in feature selection (decision tree, random forest, neural network, support vector machine, elastic net logistic regression, LogitBoost) were applied on each dataset using the popular open-source R package caret. The R code and documentation for the analysis are available online (https://github.com/timodeist/classifier_selection_code). All classifiers were run on each dataset in a 100-repeated nested fivefold cross-validation with hyperparameter tuning. Performance metrics (AUC, calibration slope and intercept, accuracy, Cohen's kappa, and Brier score) were computed. We ranked classifiers by AUC to determine which classifier is likely to also perform well in future studies. We simulated the benefit for potential investigators to select a certain classifier for a new dataset based on our study (pre-selection based on other datasets) or estimating the best classifier for a dataset (set-specific selection based on information from the new dataset) compared with uninformed classifier selection (random selection).

resultsRandom forest (best in 6/12 datasets) and elastic net logistic regression (best in 4/12 datasets) showed the overall best discrimination, but there was no single best classifier across datasets. Both classifiers had a median AUC rank of 2. Preselection and set-specific selection yielded a significant average AUC improvement of 0.02 and 0.02 over random selection with an average AUC rank improvement of 0.42 and 0.66, respectively.

conclusionRandom forest and elastic net logistic regression yield higher discriminative performance in (chemo)radiotherapy outcome and toxicity prediction than other studied classifiers. Thus, one of these two classifiers should be the first choice for investigators when building classification models or to benchmark one's own modeling results against. Our results also show that an informed preselection of classifiers based on existing datasets can improve discrimination over random selection.

Indexed as

Machine LearningArea Under CurveChemoradiotherapyDecision TreesHumansLogistic ModelsNeoplasmsNeural Networks, ComputerPrognosisSoftwareclassificationmachine learningoutcome predictionpredictive modelingradiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID29763967
PMCPMC6095141
OpenAlexW2804079537

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.