Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31070985›Full record

ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2019

Classifying Stage IV Lung Cancer From Health Care Claims: A Comparison of Multiple Analytic Approaches.

Gabriel A Brooks, Savannah L Bergquist, Mary Beth Landrum, Sherri Rose, Nancy L Keating

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Gabriel A BrooksGeisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, NH.
Savannah L BergquistHarvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Mary Beth LandrumHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Sherri RoseHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Nancy L KeatingHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA.

Funding

CALIFORNIA COORDINATED CANCER PREVENTION & CONTROL PROGRAMU58DP003862 · DP · CALIFORNIA STATE DEPT OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI SNIPES, KURT P · 2012 to 2014
$31.5M
Behavioral Economics and Improving Chemotherapy Decisions for Advanced CancerK24CA181510 · NCI · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI KEATING, NANCY L · 2014 to 2018
$867k
NCCDPHP CDC HHS U58 DP003862NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000034CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000035CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000035INCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000140CNCI NIH HHS K24 CA181510
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCancer stage is a key determinant of outcomes; however, stage is not available in claims-based data sources used for real-world evaluations. We compare multiple methods for classifying lung cancer stage from claims data.

methodsOur study used the linked SEER-Medicare data. The patient samples included fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with lung cancer from 2010 to 2011 (development cohort) and 2012 to 2013 (validation cohort) who received chemotherapy. Classification algorithms considered Medicare Part A and B claims for care in the 3 months before and after chemotherapy initiation. We developed a clinical algorithm to predict stage IV (

resultsDevelopment and validation cohorts included 14,760 and 14,620 patients with lung cancer, respectively. Validation analyses assessed clinical, random forest, and simple logistic regression algorithms. The best performing classifier within the development cohort was the random forests, but this performance was not replicated in validation analysis. Logistic regression had stable performance across cohorts. Compared with the clinical algorithm, the 14-variable logistic regression algorithm demonstrated higher accuracy in both the development (77%

conclusionMachine learning algorithms have potential to improve lung cancer stage classification but may be prone to overfitting. Use of ensembles, cross-validation, and external validation can aid generalizability. Degradation of accuracy between development and validation cohorts suggests the need for caution in implementing machine learning in research or care delivery.

Indexed as

Insurance Claim ReviewAgedAged, 80 and overAlgorithmsArea Under CurveFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMachine LearningMaleMedicareMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPrognosisReproducibility of ResultsSEER Program

Identifiers

PMID31070985
PMCPMC6873980

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.