ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2023
Comparison of Machine Learning Methods in the Study of Cancer Survivors' Return to Work: An Example of Breast Cancer Survivors with Work-Related Factors in the CONSTANCES Cohort.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors influencing psychological distress among breast cancer survivors using machine learning techniques.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMachine learning (ML) methods showed a higher accuracy in identifying individuals without cancer who were unable to return to work (RTW) compared to the classical methods (e.g. logistic regression models). We therefore aim to discuss the value of these methods in relation to RTW for cancer survivors.
methodsBreast cancer (BC) survivors who were working at diagnosis within the CONSTANCES cohort were included in the study. RTW was assessed five years after the BC diagnosis (early retirement was considered as non-RTW). Age and occupation at diagnosis, and physical occupational job exposures assessed using the Job Exposure Matrix, JEM-CONSTANCES, were evaluated as predictors of RTW five years after BC diagnosis. The following four ML methods were used: (i) k-nearest neighbors; (ii) random forest; (iii) neural network; and (iv) elastic net.
resultsThe training sample included 683 BC survivors (RTW: 85.7%), and the test sample 171 (RTW: 85.4%). The elastic net method had the best results despite low sensitivity (accuracy = 76.6%; sensitivity = 31.7%; specificity = 90.8%), and the random forest model was the most accurate (= 79.5%) but also the least sensitive (= 14.3%).
conclusionThis study takes a first step towards opening up new possibilities for identifying the occupational determinants of cancer survivors' RTW. Further work, including a larger sample size, and more predictor variables, is now needed.
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.