Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42060909›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026

Time-Dynamic AI Models to Predict Quality of Life in Patients With Breast Cancer: Development and Validation Study Using the EORTC BALANCE Cohort.

Niclas J Hubel, Thijs G W van der Heijden, Benjamin Murauer, Belle H de Rooij, Kelly M de Ligt, Helena M Verkooijen, Sofie Am Gernaat, Meeke Hoedjes, Volker Arndt, Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse and 2 more

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Niclas J HubelHealth Outcomes Research Unit, University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, Innsbruck, 6020, Austria, 00 43 0 512 5042 3629.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-5501-1583
Thijs G W van der HeijdenDepartment of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6693-5146
Benjamin MurauerEvaluation Software Development GmbH, Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9150-6856
Belle H de RooijCenter of Research on Psychological Disorders and Somatic Diseases, Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0172-0857
Kelly M de LigtDepartment of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9218-617X
Helena M VerkooijenDivision of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9480-1623
Sofie Am GernaatDivision of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7828-1138
Meeke HoedjesCenter of Research on Psychological Disorders and Somatic Disorders, Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6887-2882
Volker ArndtCancer Survivorship Outcomes and Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9320-8684
Lonneke V van de Poll-FranseDepartment of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0413-6872
Bernhard HolznerHealth Outcomes Research Unit, University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, Innsbruck, 6020, Austria, 00 43 0 512 5042 3629.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3389-3621
Jens LehmannHealth Outcomes Research Unit, University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, Innsbruck, 6020, Austria, 00 43 0 512 5042 3629.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4670-7517

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Patients with breast cancer often experience health-related quality of life (HRQoL) impairments that remain difficult to predict on an individual level. Prediction models can aid in understanding individual survivorship trajectories. However, current prognostic models are based on fixed intervals, limiting their utility in clinical follow-up schedules. Objective: This study aimed to develop and externally validate time-dynamic machine learning (ML) models that predict clinically relevant HRQoL impairments in nonmetastatic patients with breast cancer. Methods: Using the pooled multicohort EORTC (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer) BALANCE (big data in patients with breast cancer) dataset (n=6316) containing repeated HRQoL measurements (EORTC QLQ [Quality of Life Core Questionnaire]-C30), we constructed over 70,000 patient assessment pairs. ML algorithms were trained using the earlier HRQoL assessment and clinical data to predict dichotomized impairments in QLQ-C30 domains at the later assessment between 2 weeks and 5 years ahead, reflecting the range of follow-up intervals available in the dataset. The best performing model was determined via the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in the internal validation, and externally validated in an independent cohort of the BALANCE dataset, in which the calibration and predictive performance in risk groups (patients: postmenopause, with financial difficulties, with obesity, with 2 or more comorbidities, with lower educational status, and with frailty) were also evaluated. Results: ML models showed good discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.64-0.84) across most domains, especially for persistent symptoms such as fatigue, financial difficulties, or functioning scales. Gradient boosting models performed best, but tended to be overconfident, with poor calibration for low-prevalence symptoms such as diarrhea or constipation. Model performance varied by risk group (eg, lower education and frailty), though no group consistently performed poorly. Performance remained stable across time windows, with prior HRQoL being the strongest predictor at the respective scale level, while clinical variables such as the type of treatment were less important for prediction. Conclusions: Time-dynamic ML models can support personalized HRQoL prediction in breast cancer care. Future improvements should focus on calibration and fairness to enable equitable, clinically meaningful implementation.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMachine LearningQuality of LifeAgedCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPrediction AlgorithmsPredictive Learning ModelsSurveys and Questionnairesbreast cancerhealth-related quality of lifeHRQoLmachine learningpatient-reported outcomesprediction modeling

Identifiers

PMID42060909
PMCPMC13132481

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.