| Literature DB >> 33854588 |
Ting-Ting Gong1, Xin-Hui He2, Song Gao2, Qi-Jun Wu1.
Abstract
Background: Ovarian cancer (OC) has the highest mortality among gynecological malignancies, and resistance to chemotherapy drugs is common. We aim to develop a machine learning approach based on gut microbiota to predict the chemotherapy resistance of OC.Entities:
Keywords: chemoresistant; gut microbiota; machine learning; ovarian cancer; random forest
Year: 2021 PMID: 33854588 PMCID: PMC8040891 DOI: 10.7150/jca.46621
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cancer ISSN: 1837-9664 Impact factor: 4.207
Figure 1The working process of machine learning and random forest model.
Characteristics of ovarian cancer patients with or without chemotherapy resistance
| Total | Chemoresistant | Chemosensitive | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of case | 174 | 77 | 97 | |
| Age (Mean ± SD) | 55.87±9.65 | 56.77±9.45 | 55.16±9.79 | 0.278 |
| 0.072 | ||||
| I | 36 (20.7) | 12 (15.6) | 24 (24.7) | |
| II | 8 (4.6) | 1 (1.3) | 7 (7.2) | |
| III | 111 (63.8) | 53 (68.8) | 58 (59.8) | |
| IV | 19 (10.9) | 11 (14.3) | 8 (8.2) | |
| 0.941 | ||||
| Serous | 109 (62.6) | 48 (62.3) | 61 (62.9) | |
| Non-serous | 65 (37.4) | 29 (37.7) | 36 (37.1) | |
FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; SD, standard deviation.
Comparison of phylotype coverage, richness, and diversity estimation of two groups according to 16S rRNA sequencing analysis
| Group | No. of OUTs* | Good's (%) | Richness | Diversity | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACE | Chao1 | Shannon | Simpson | |||
| Chemoresistant | 2322 | 99.76 | 521 | 501 | 5.42 | 0.939 |
| Chemosensitive | 2776 | 99.75 | 547 | 522 | 5.19 | 0.925 |
*The operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were defined at the 97% similarity level.
Figure 2Comparison of the gut microbiota structures between chemoresistant and chemosensitive ovarian cancer patients. (A) Shannon index (B) Simpson index (C) Rarefaction curves (D) Rank-Abundance Curve.
Figure 3Phylogenetic tree of top 100 abundant species at genus level of ovarian cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.
Performance comparison of different machine learning methods using RapidMiner
| Model | Accuracy | Standard Deviation | Gains |
|---|---|---|---|
| Naive Bayes | 0.56 | 0.1 | 0.0 |
| Generalized Linear Model | 0.58 | 0.1 | 4.0 |
| Logistic Regression | 0.56 | 0.1 | 0.0 |
| Fast Large Margin | 0.50 | 0.1 | -6.0 |
| Deep Learning | 0.56 | 0.1 | 0.0 |
| Decision Tree | 0.50 | 0.1 | -4.0 |
| Random Forest | 0.60 | 0.1 | 4.0 |
| Gradient Boosted Trees | 0.54 | 0.1 | -4.0 |
| Support Vector Machine | 0.58 | 0.1 | 2.0 |
Figure 4Prediction of gut microbiota for the chemoresistant of ovarian cancer patients. (A) tSNE dimensionality reduction analysis (B) top 20 variable importance in random forest model (C) receiver operating characteristic curve of random forest model.