Literature DB >> 35239414

Simple Linear Cancer Risk Prediction Models With Novel Features Outperform Complex Approaches.

Scott Kulm1,2, Lior Kofman1,3, Jason Mezey4,5, Olivier Elemento1,2.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35239414      PMCID: PMC8920463          DOI: 10.1200/CCI.21.00166

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform        ISSN: 2473-4276


  18 in total

1.  Gail model and breast cancer.

Authors:  M H Gail; M H Greene
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2000-03-18       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  A new initiative on precision medicine.

Authors:  Francis S Collins; Harold Varmus
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-01-30       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Development and Validation of Risk Models to Select Ever-Smokers for CT Lung Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Hormuzd A Katki; Stephanie A Kovalchik; Christine D Berg; Li C Cheung; Anil K Chaturvedi
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually.

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

5.  Cohort Profile: Estonian Biobank of the Estonian Genome Center, University of Tartu.

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

6.  Screening for lung cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors:  Virginia A Moyer
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-03-04       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Cardiovascular disease risk prediction using automated machine learning: A prospective study of 423,604 UK Biobank participants.

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

8.  The UK Biobank resource with deep phenotyping and genomic data.

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

9.  Pan-cancer analysis demonstrates that integrating polygenic risk scores with modifiable risk factors improves risk prediction.

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

10.  Selection of 51 predictors from 13,782 candidate multimodal features using machine learning improves coronary artery disease prediction.

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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.