Cargando…

A comparison of machine learning models and Cox proportional hazards models regarding their ability to predict the risk of gastrointestinal cancer based on metabolic syndrome and its components

BACKGROUND: Little is known about applying machine learning (ML) techniques to identify the important variables contributing to the occurrence of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer in epidemiological studies. We aimed to compare different ML models to a Cox proportional hazards (CPH) model regarding their...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tran, Tao Thi, Lee, Jeonghee, Gunathilake, Madhawa, Kim, Junetae, Kim, Sun-Young, Cho, Hyunsoon, Kim, Jeongseon
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10018751/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36937438
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1049787
_version_ 1784907879738769408
author Tran, Tao Thi
Lee, Jeonghee
Gunathilake, Madhawa
Kim, Junetae
Kim, Sun-Young
Cho, Hyunsoon
Kim, Jeongseon
author_facet Tran, Tao Thi
Lee, Jeonghee
Gunathilake, Madhawa
Kim, Junetae
Kim, Sun-Young
Cho, Hyunsoon
Kim, Jeongseon
author_sort Tran, Tao Thi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Little is known about applying machine learning (ML) techniques to identify the important variables contributing to the occurrence of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer in epidemiological studies. We aimed to compare different ML models to a Cox proportional hazards (CPH) model regarding their ability to predict the risk of GI cancer based on metabolic syndrome (MetS) and its components. METHODS: A total of 41,837 participants were included in a prospective cohort study. Incident cancer cases were identified by following up with participants until December 2019. We used CPH, random survival forest (RSF), survival trees (ST), gradient boosting (GB), survival support vector machine (SSVM), and extra survival trees (EST) models to explore the impact of MetS on GI cancer prediction. We used the C-index and integrated Brier score (IBS) to compare the models. RESULTS: In all, 540 incident GI cancer cases were identified. The GB and SSVM models exhibited comparable performance to the CPH model concerning the C-index (0.725). We also recorded a similar IBS for all models (0.017). Fasting glucose and waist circumference were considered important predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found comparably good performance concerning the C-index for the ML models and CPH model. This finding suggests that ML models may be considered another method for survival analysis when the CPH model’s conditions are not satisfied.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10018751
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100187512023-03-17 A comparison of machine learning models and Cox proportional hazards models regarding their ability to predict the risk of gastrointestinal cancer based on metabolic syndrome and its components Tran, Tao Thi Lee, Jeonghee Gunathilake, Madhawa Kim, Junetae Kim, Sun-Young Cho, Hyunsoon Kim, Jeongseon Front Oncol Oncology BACKGROUND: Little is known about applying machine learning (ML) techniques to identify the important variables contributing to the occurrence of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer in epidemiological studies. We aimed to compare different ML models to a Cox proportional hazards (CPH) model regarding their ability to predict the risk of GI cancer based on metabolic syndrome (MetS) and its components. METHODS: A total of 41,837 participants were included in a prospective cohort study. Incident cancer cases were identified by following up with participants until December 2019. We used CPH, random survival forest (RSF), survival trees (ST), gradient boosting (GB), survival support vector machine (SSVM), and extra survival trees (EST) models to explore the impact of MetS on GI cancer prediction. We used the C-index and integrated Brier score (IBS) to compare the models. RESULTS: In all, 540 incident GI cancer cases were identified. The GB and SSVM models exhibited comparable performance to the CPH model concerning the C-index (0.725). We also recorded a similar IBS for all models (0.017). Fasting glucose and waist circumference were considered important predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found comparably good performance concerning the C-index for the ML models and CPH model. This finding suggests that ML models may be considered another method for survival analysis when the CPH model’s conditions are not satisfied. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-03-02 /pmc/articles/PMC10018751/ /pubmed/36937438 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1049787 Text en Copyright © 2023 Tran, Lee, Gunathilake, Kim, Kim, Cho and Kim https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Oncology
Tran, Tao Thi
Lee, Jeonghee
Gunathilake, Madhawa
Kim, Junetae
Kim, Sun-Young
Cho, Hyunsoon
Kim, Jeongseon
A comparison of machine learning models and Cox proportional hazards models regarding their ability to predict the risk of gastrointestinal cancer based on metabolic syndrome and its components
title A comparison of machine learning models and Cox proportional hazards models regarding their ability to predict the risk of gastrointestinal cancer based on metabolic syndrome and its components
title_full A comparison of machine learning models and Cox proportional hazards models regarding their ability to predict the risk of gastrointestinal cancer based on metabolic syndrome and its components
title_fullStr A comparison of machine learning models and Cox proportional hazards models regarding their ability to predict the risk of gastrointestinal cancer based on metabolic syndrome and its components
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of machine learning models and Cox proportional hazards models regarding their ability to predict the risk of gastrointestinal cancer based on metabolic syndrome and its components
title_short A comparison of machine learning models and Cox proportional hazards models regarding their ability to predict the risk of gastrointestinal cancer based on metabolic syndrome and its components
title_sort comparison of machine learning models and cox proportional hazards models regarding their ability to predict the risk of gastrointestinal cancer based on metabolic syndrome and its components
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10018751/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36937438
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1049787
work_keys_str_mv AT trantaothi acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsandcoxproportionalhazardsmodelsregardingtheirabilitytopredicttheriskofgastrointestinalcancerbasedonmetabolicsyndromeanditscomponents
AT leejeonghee acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsandcoxproportionalhazardsmodelsregardingtheirabilitytopredicttheriskofgastrointestinalcancerbasedonmetabolicsyndromeanditscomponents
AT gunathilakemadhawa acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsandcoxproportionalhazardsmodelsregardingtheirabilitytopredicttheriskofgastrointestinalcancerbasedonmetabolicsyndromeanditscomponents
AT kimjunetae acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsandcoxproportionalhazardsmodelsregardingtheirabilitytopredicttheriskofgastrointestinalcancerbasedonmetabolicsyndromeanditscomponents
AT kimsunyoung acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsandcoxproportionalhazardsmodelsregardingtheirabilitytopredicttheriskofgastrointestinalcancerbasedonmetabolicsyndromeanditscomponents
AT chohyunsoon acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsandcoxproportionalhazardsmodelsregardingtheirabilitytopredicttheriskofgastrointestinalcancerbasedonmetabolicsyndromeanditscomponents
AT kimjeongseon acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsandcoxproportionalhazardsmodelsregardingtheirabilitytopredicttheriskofgastrointestinalcancerbasedonmetabolicsyndromeanditscomponents
AT trantaothi comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsandcoxproportionalhazardsmodelsregardingtheirabilitytopredicttheriskofgastrointestinalcancerbasedonmetabolicsyndromeanditscomponents
AT leejeonghee comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsandcoxproportionalhazardsmodelsregardingtheirabilitytopredicttheriskofgastrointestinalcancerbasedonmetabolicsyndromeanditscomponents
AT gunathilakemadhawa comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsandcoxproportionalhazardsmodelsregardingtheirabilitytopredicttheriskofgastrointestinalcancerbasedonmetabolicsyndromeanditscomponents
AT kimjunetae comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsandcoxproportionalhazardsmodelsregardingtheirabilitytopredicttheriskofgastrointestinalcancerbasedonmetabolicsyndromeanditscomponents
AT kimsunyoung comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsandcoxproportionalhazardsmodelsregardingtheirabilitytopredicttheriskofgastrointestinalcancerbasedonmetabolicsyndromeanditscomponents
AT chohyunsoon comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsandcoxproportionalhazardsmodelsregardingtheirabilitytopredicttheriskofgastrointestinalcancerbasedonmetabolicsyndromeanditscomponents
AT kimjeongseon comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsandcoxproportionalhazardsmodelsregardingtheirabilitytopredicttheriskofgastrointestinalcancerbasedonmetabolicsyndromeanditscomponents