Scott Kulm1,2, Lior Kofman1,3, Jason Mezey4,5, Olivier Elemento1,2. 1. Caryl and Israel Englander Institute of Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY. 2. Physiology, Biophysics and Systems Biology Graduate Program, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY. 3. Department of Computer Science, Tufts University, Medford, MA. 4. Department of Genetic Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY. 5. Department of Computational Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The ability to accurately predict an individual's risk for cancer is critical to the implementation of precision prevention measures. Current cancer risk predictions are frequently made with simple models that use a few proven risk factors, such as the Gail model for breast cancer, which are easy to interpret, but may theoretically be less accurate than advanced machine learning (ML) models. METHODS: With the UK Biobank, a large prospective study, we developed models that predicted 13 cancer diagnoses within a 10-year time span. ML and linear models fit with all features, linear models fit with 10 features, and externally developed QCancer models, which are available to more than 4,000 general practices, were assessed. RESULTS: The average area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) of the linear models (0.722, SE = 0.015) was greater than the average AUC of the ML models (0.720, SE = 0.016) when all 931 features were used. Linear models with only 10 features generated an average AUC of 0.706 (SE 0.015), which was comparable to the complex models using all features and greater than the average AUC of the QCancer models (0.684, SE 0.021). The high performance of the 10-feature linear model may be caused by the consideration of often omitted feature types, including census records and genetic information. CONCLUSION: The high performance of the 10-feature linear models indicate that unbiased selection of diverse features, not ML models, may lead to impressively accurate predictions, possibly enabling personalized screening schedules that increase cancer survival.
PURPOSE: The ability to accurately predict an individual's risk for cancer is critical to the implementation of precision prevention measures. Current cancer risk predictions are frequently made with simple models that use a few proven risk factors, such as the Gail model for breast cancer, which are easy to interpret, but may theoretically be less accurate than advanced machine learning (ML) models. METHODS: With the UK Biobank, a large prospective study, we developed models that predicted 13 cancer diagnoses within a 10-year time span. ML and linear models fit with all features, linear models fit with 10 features, and externally developed QCancer models, which are available to more than 4,000 general practices, were assessed. RESULTS: The average area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) of the linear models (0.722, SE = 0.015) was greater than the average AUC of the ML models (0.720, SE = 0.016) when all 931 features were used. Linear models with only 10 features generated an average AUC of 0.706 (SE 0.015), which was comparable to the complex models using all features and greater than the average AUC of the QCancer models (0.684, SE 0.021). The high performance of the 10-feature linear model may be caused by the consideration of often omitted feature types, including census records and genetic information. CONCLUSION: The high performance of the 10-feature linear models indicate that unbiased selection of diverse features, not ML models, may lead to impressively accurate predictions, possibly enabling personalized screening schedules that increase cancer survival.
Authors: M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1989-12-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Liis Leitsalu; Toomas Haller; Tõnu Esko; Mari-Liis Tammesoo; Helene Alavere; Harold Snieder; Markus Perola; Pauline C Ng; Reedik Mägi; Lili Milani; Krista Fischer; Andres Metspalu Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Ahmed M Alaa; Thomas Bolton; Emanuele Di Angelantonio; James H F Rudd; Mihaela van der Schaar Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Clare Bycroft; Colin Freeman; Desislava Petkova; Gavin Band; Lloyd T Elliott; Kevin Sharp; Allan Motyer; Damjan Vukcevic; Olivier Delaneau; Jared O'Connell; Adrian Cortes; Samantha Welsh; Alan Young; Mark Effingham; Gil McVean; Stephen Leslie; Naomi Allen; Peter Donnelly; Jonathan Marchini Journal: Nature Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Linda Kachuri; Rebecca E Graff; Karl Smith-Byrne; Travis J Meyers; Sara R Rashkin; Elad Ziv; John S Witte; Mattias Johansson Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2020-11-27 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Saaket Agrawal; Marcus D R Klarqvist; Connor Emdin; Aniruddh P Patel; Manish D Paranjpe; Patrick T Ellinor; Anthony Philippakis; Kenney Ng; Puneet Batra; Amit V Khera Journal: Patterns (N Y) Date: 2021-10-04