ArticleResearch square2024
Hybridizing mechanistic mathematical modeling with deep learning methods to predict individual cancer patient survival after immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.
Article in Research square, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We present a study where predictive mechanistic modeling is used in combination with deep learning methods to predict individual patient survival probabilities under immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. This hybrid approach enables prediction based on both measures that are calculable from mechanistic models (but may not be directly measurable in the clinic) and easily measurable quantities or characteristics (that are not always readily incorporated into predictive mechanistic models). The mechanistic model we have applied here can predict tumor response from CT or MRI imaging based on key mechanisms underlying checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and in the present work, its parameters were combined with readily-available clinical measures from 93 patients into a hybrid training set for a deep learning time-to-event predictive model. Analysis revealed that training an artificial neural network with both mechanistic modeling-derived and clinical measures achieved higher per-patient predictive accuracy based on event-time concordance, Brier score, and negative binomial log-likelihood-based criteria than when only mechanistic model-derived values or only clinical data were used. Feature importance analysis revealed that both clinical and model-derived parameters play prominent roles in neural network decision making, and in increasing prediction accuracy, further supporting the advantage of our hybrid approach. We anticipate that many existing mechanistic models may be hybridized with deep learning methods in a similar manner to improve predictive accuracy through addition of additional data that may not be readily implemented in mechanistic descriptions.
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.