Literature DB >> 26471190

Using Active Learning for Speeding up Calibration in Simulation Models.

Mucahit Cevik1, Mehmet Ali Ergun1, Natasha K Stout2, Amy Trentham-Dietz3, Mark Craven4, Oguzhan Alagoz1,3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Most cancer simulation models include unobservable parameters that determine disease onset and tumor growth. These parameters play an important role in matching key outcomes such as cancer incidence and mortality, and their values are typically estimated via a lengthy calibration procedure, which involves evaluating a large number of combinations of parameter values via simulation. The objective of this study is to demonstrate how machine learning approaches can be used to accelerate the calibration process by reducing the number of parameter combinations that are actually evaluated.
METHODS: Active learning is a popular machine learning method that enables a learning algorithm such as artificial neural networks to interactively choose which parameter combinations to evaluate. We developed an active learning algorithm to expedite the calibration process. Our algorithm determines the parameter combinations that are more likely to produce desired outputs and therefore reduces the number of simulation runs performed during calibration. We demonstrate our method using the previously developed University of Wisconsin breast cancer simulation model (UWBCS).
RESULTS: In a recent study, calibration of the UWBCS required the evaluation of 378 000 input parameter combinations to build a race-specific model, and only 69 of these combinations produced results that closely matched observed data. By using the active learning algorithm in conjunction with standard calibration methods, we identify all 69 parameter combinations by evaluating only 5620 of the 378 000 combinations.
CONCLUSION: Machine learning methods hold potential in guiding model developers in the selection of more promising parameter combinations and hence speeding up the calibration process. Applying our machine learning algorithm to one model shows that evaluating only 1.49% of all parameter combinations would be sufficient for the calibration.
© The Author(s) 2015.

Entities:  

Keywords:  active learning; artificial neural networks; calibration; cancer simulation; machine learning

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26471190      PMCID: PMC4833719          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15611359

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  24 in total

1.  Incorporating calibrated model parameters into sensitivity analyses: deterministic and probabilistic approaches.

Authors:  Douglas C A Taylor; Vivek Pawar; Denise T Kruzikas; Kristen E Gilmore; Myrlene Sanon; Milton C Weinstein
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Discretization of continuous features in clinical datasets.

Authors:  David M Maslove; Tanya Podchiyska; Henry J Lowe
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2012-10-11       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Variation in tumor natural history contributes to racial disparities in breast cancer stage at diagnosis.

Authors:  Nataliya G Batina; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Ronald E Gangnon; Brian L Sprague; Marjorie A Rosenberg; Natasha K Stout; Dennis G Fryback; Oguzhan Alagoz
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-02-16       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 4.  A comparative review of CISNET breast models used to analyze U.S. breast cancer incidence and mortality trends.

Authors:  Lauren D Clarke; Sylvia K Plevritis; Rob Boer; Kathleen A Cronin; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2006

5.  The SPECTRUM population model of the impact of screening and treatment on U.S. breast cancer trends from 1975 to 2000: principles and practice of the model methods.

Authors:  Jeanne Mandelblatt; Clyde B Schechter; William Lawrence; Bin Yi; Jennifer Cullen
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2006

6.  How does early detection by screening affect disease progression? Modeling estimated benefits in prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Elisabeth M Wever; Gerrit Draisma; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2011-03-15       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Mortality prediction in intensive care units with the Super ICU Learner Algorithm (SICULA): a population-based study.

Authors:  Romain Pirracchio; Maya L Petersen; Marco Carone; Matthieu Resche Rigon; Sylvie Chevret; Mark J van der Laan
Journal:  Lancet Respir Med       Date:  2014-11-24       Impact factor: 30.700

8.  The costs, clinical benefits, and cost-effectiveness of screening for cervical cancer in HIV-infected women.

Authors:  S J Goldie; M C Weinstein; K M Kuntz; K A Freedberg
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1999-01-19       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Health economic evaluation of plasma oxysterol screening in the diagnosis of Niemann-Pick Type C disease among intellectually disabled using discrete event simulation.

Authors:  Clara D M van Karnebeek; Tima Mohammadi; Nicole Tsao; Graham Sinclair; Sandra Sirrs; Sylvia Stockler; Carlo Marra
Journal:  Mol Genet Metab       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 4.797

10.  Comparative analysis of 5 lung cancer natural history and screening models that reproduce outcomes of the NLST and PLCO trials.

Authors:  Rafael Meza; Kevin ten Haaf; Chung Yin Kong; Ayca Erdogan; William C Black; Martin C Tammemagi; Sung Eun Choi; Jihyoun Jeon; Summer S Han; Vidit Munshi; Joost van Rosmalen; Paul Pinsky; Pamela M McMahon; Harry J de Koning; Eric J Feuer; William D Hazelton; Sylvia K Plevritis
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-02-27       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  6 in total

1.  Bayesian Methods for Calibrating Health Policy Models: A Tutorial.

Authors:  Nicolas A Menzies; Djøra I Soeteman; Ankur Pandya; Jane J Kim
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Active Learning for Multi-way Sensitivity Analysis with Application to Disease Screening Modeling.

Authors:  Mucahit Cevik; Sabrina Angco; Elham Heydarigharaei; Hadi Jahanshahi; Nicholas Prayogo
Journal:  J Healthc Inform Res       Date:  2022-07-15

3.  Multiobjective Calibration of Disease Simulation Models Using Gaussian Processes.

Authors:  Aditya Sai; Carolina Vivas-Valencia; Thomas F Imperiale; Nan Kong
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2019-08-02       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  The University of Wisconsin Breast Cancer Epidemiology Simulation Model: An Update.

Authors:  Oguzhan Alagoz; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Mucahit Cevik; Brian L Sprague; Dennis G Fryback; Ronald E Gangnon; John M Hampton; Natasha K Stout; Amy Trentham-Dietz
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Extreme-scale Dynamic Exploration of a Distributed Agent-based Model with the EMEWS Framework.

Authors:  Jonathan Ozik; Nicholson T Collier; Justin M Wozniak; Charles Macal; Gary An
Journal:  IEEE Trans Comput Soc Syst       Date:  2018-08-30

6.  Novel microsimulation model of tobacco use behaviours and outcomes: calibration and validation in a US population.

Authors:  Krishna P Reddy; Alexander J B Bulteel; Douglas E Levy; Pamela Torola; Emily P Hyle; Taige Hou; Benjamin Osher; Liyang Yu; Fatma M Shebl; A David Paltiel; Kenneth A Freedberg; Milton C Weinstein; Nancy A Rigotti; Rochelle P Walensky
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-05-12       Impact factor: 2.692

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.