ArticleBMJ oncology2024
From prediction to practice: mitigating bias and data shift in machine-learning models for chemotherapy-induced organ dysfunction across unseen cancers.
Article in BMJ oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prediction of Acute Kidney Injury in Oncology: From Clinical Risk Scores to AI-Enabled Precision Onco-Nephrology.Cancers · 2026Review
- Article
- Multimodal artificial intelligence and machine learning in oncology: from data integration to precision cancer care.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Routine monitoring of renal and hepatic function during chemotherapy ensures that treatment-related organ damage has not occurred and clearance of subsequent treatment is not hindered; however, frequency and timing are not optimal. Model bias and data heterogeneity concerns have hampered the ability of machine learning (ML) to be deployed into clinical practice. This study aims to develop models that could support individualised decisions on the timing of renal and hepatic monitoring while exploring the effect of data shift on model performance. Methods and analysis: We used retrospective data from three UK hospitals to develop and validate ML models predicting unacceptable rises in creatinine/bilirubin post cycle 3 for patients undergoing treatment for the following cancers: breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Results: We extracted 3614 patients with no missing blood test data across cycles 1-6 of chemotherapy treatment. We improved on previous work by including predictions post cycle 3. Optimised for sensitivity, we achieve F2 scores of 0.7773 (bilirubin) and 0.6893 (creatinine) on unseen data. Performance is consistent on tumour types unseen during training (F2 bilirubin: 0.7423, F2 creatinine: 0.6820). Conclusion: Our technique highlights the effectiveness of ML in clinical settings, demonstrating the potential to improve the delivery of care. Notably, our ML models can generalise to unseen tumour types. We propose gold-standard bias mitigation steps for ML models: evaluation on multisite data, thorough patient population analysis, and both formalised bias measures and model performance comparisons on patient subgroups. We demonstrate that data aggregation techniques have unintended consequences on model bias.
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.