ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2021
Two-Stage Approaches to Accounting for Patient Heterogeneity in Machine Learning Risk Prediction Models in Oncology.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Machine Learning for Prediction of High-Risk Infections in Patients With Cancer.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Cancer-specific survival patterns in patients with bone metastasis: a registry-based analysis of 13,742 patients.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMachine learning models developed from electronic health records data have been increasingly used to predict risk of mortality for general oncology patients. But these models may have suboptimal performance because of patient heterogeneity. The objective of this work is to develop a new modeling approach to predicting short-term mortality that accounts for heterogeneity across multiple subgroups in the presence of a large number of electronic health record predictors.
methodsWe proposed a two-stage approach to addressing heterogeneity among oncology patients of different cancer types for predicting their risk of mortality. Structured data were extracted from the University of Pennsylvania Health System for 20,723 patients of 11 cancer types, where 1,340 (6.5%) patients were deceased. We first modeled the overall risk for all patients without differentiating cancer types, as is done in the current practice. We then developed cancer type-specific models using the overall risk score as a predictor along with preselected type-specific predictors. The overall and type-specific models were compared with respect to discrimination using the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) and calibration using the calibration slope. We also proposed metrics that characterize the degree of risk heterogeneity by comparing risk predictors in the overall and type-specific models.
resultsThe two-stage modeling resulted in improved calibration and discrimination across all 11 cancer types. The improvement in AUPRC was significant for hematologic malignancies including leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma. For instance, the AUPRC increased from 0.358 to 0.519 (∆ = 0.161; 95% CI, 0.102 to 0.224) and from 0.299 to 0.354 (∆ = 0.055; 95% CI, 0.009 to 0.107) for leukemia and lymphoma, respectively. For all 11 cancer types, the two-stage approach generated well-calibrated risks. A high degree of heterogeneity between type-specific and overall risk predictors was observed for most cancer types.
conclusionOur two-stage modeling approach that accounts for cancer type-specific risk heterogeneity has improved calibration and discrimination than a model agnostic to cancer types.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.