Cargando…

Multiclass risk models for ovarian malignancy: an illustration of prediction uncertainty due to the choice of algorithm

BACKGROUND: Assessing malignancy risk is important to choose appropriate management of ovarian tumors. We compared six algorithms to estimate the probabilities that an ovarian tumor is benign, borderline malignant, stage I primary invasive, stage II-IV primary invasive, or secondary metastatic. METH...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ledger, Ashleigh, Ceusters, Jolien, Valentin, Lil, Testa, Antonia, Van Holsbeke, Caroline, Franchi, Dorella, Bourne, Tom, Froyman, Wouter, Timmerman, Dirk, Van Calster, Ben
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10668424/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38001421
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-02103-3
_version_ 1785149127856750592
author Ledger, Ashleigh
Ceusters, Jolien
Valentin, Lil
Testa, Antonia
Van Holsbeke, Caroline
Franchi, Dorella
Bourne, Tom
Froyman, Wouter
Timmerman, Dirk
Van Calster, Ben
author_facet Ledger, Ashleigh
Ceusters, Jolien
Valentin, Lil
Testa, Antonia
Van Holsbeke, Caroline
Franchi, Dorella
Bourne, Tom
Froyman, Wouter
Timmerman, Dirk
Van Calster, Ben
author_sort Ledger, Ashleigh
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Assessing malignancy risk is important to choose appropriate management of ovarian tumors. We compared six algorithms to estimate the probabilities that an ovarian tumor is benign, borderline malignant, stage I primary invasive, stage II-IV primary invasive, or secondary metastatic. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used 5909 patients recruited from 1999 to 2012 for model development, and 3199 patients recruited from 2012 to 2015 for model validation. Patients were recruited at oncology referral or general centers and underwent an ultrasound examination and surgery ≤ 120 days later. We developed models using standard multinomial logistic regression (MLR), Ridge MLR, random forest (RF), XGBoost, neural networks (NN), and support vector machines (SVM). We used nine clinical and ultrasound predictors but developed models with or without CA125. RESULTS: Most tumors were benign (3980 in development and 1688 in validation data), secondary metastatic tumors were least common (246 and 172). The c-statistic (AUROC) to discriminate benign from any type of malignant tumor ranged from 0.89 to 0.92 for models with CA125, from 0.89 to 0.91 for models without. The multiclass c-statistic ranged from 0.41 (SVM) to 0.55 (XGBoost) for models with CA125, and from 0.42 (SVM) to 0.51 (standard MLR) for models without. Multiclass calibration was best for RF and XGBoost. Estimated probabilities for a benign tumor in the same patient often differed by more than 0.2 (20% points) depending on the model. Net Benefit for diagnosing malignancy was similar for algorithms at the commonly used 10% risk threshold, but was slightly higher for RF at higher thresholds. Comparing models, between 3% (XGBoost vs. NN, with CA125) and 30% (NN vs. SVM, without CA125) of patients fell on opposite sides of the 10% threshold. CONCLUSION: Although several models had similarly good performance, individual probability estimates varied substantially. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-023-02103-3.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10668424
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106684242023-11-24 Multiclass risk models for ovarian malignancy: an illustration of prediction uncertainty due to the choice of algorithm Ledger, Ashleigh Ceusters, Jolien Valentin, Lil Testa, Antonia Van Holsbeke, Caroline Franchi, Dorella Bourne, Tom Froyman, Wouter Timmerman, Dirk Van Calster, Ben BMC Med Res Methodol Research BACKGROUND: Assessing malignancy risk is important to choose appropriate management of ovarian tumors. We compared six algorithms to estimate the probabilities that an ovarian tumor is benign, borderline malignant, stage I primary invasive, stage II-IV primary invasive, or secondary metastatic. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used 5909 patients recruited from 1999 to 2012 for model development, and 3199 patients recruited from 2012 to 2015 for model validation. Patients were recruited at oncology referral or general centers and underwent an ultrasound examination and surgery ≤ 120 days later. We developed models using standard multinomial logistic regression (MLR), Ridge MLR, random forest (RF), XGBoost, neural networks (NN), and support vector machines (SVM). We used nine clinical and ultrasound predictors but developed models with or without CA125. RESULTS: Most tumors were benign (3980 in development and 1688 in validation data), secondary metastatic tumors were least common (246 and 172). The c-statistic (AUROC) to discriminate benign from any type of malignant tumor ranged from 0.89 to 0.92 for models with CA125, from 0.89 to 0.91 for models without. The multiclass c-statistic ranged from 0.41 (SVM) to 0.55 (XGBoost) for models with CA125, and from 0.42 (SVM) to 0.51 (standard MLR) for models without. Multiclass calibration was best for RF and XGBoost. Estimated probabilities for a benign tumor in the same patient often differed by more than 0.2 (20% points) depending on the model. Net Benefit for diagnosing malignancy was similar for algorithms at the commonly used 10% risk threshold, but was slightly higher for RF at higher thresholds. Comparing models, between 3% (XGBoost vs. NN, with CA125) and 30% (NN vs. SVM, without CA125) of patients fell on opposite sides of the 10% threshold. CONCLUSION: Although several models had similarly good performance, individual probability estimates varied substantially. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-023-02103-3. BioMed Central 2023-11-24 /pmc/articles/PMC10668424/ /pubmed/38001421 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-02103-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Ledger, Ashleigh
Ceusters, Jolien
Valentin, Lil
Testa, Antonia
Van Holsbeke, Caroline
Franchi, Dorella
Bourne, Tom
Froyman, Wouter
Timmerman, Dirk
Van Calster, Ben
Multiclass risk models for ovarian malignancy: an illustration of prediction uncertainty due to the choice of algorithm
title Multiclass risk models for ovarian malignancy: an illustration of prediction uncertainty due to the choice of algorithm
title_full Multiclass risk models for ovarian malignancy: an illustration of prediction uncertainty due to the choice of algorithm
title_fullStr Multiclass risk models for ovarian malignancy: an illustration of prediction uncertainty due to the choice of algorithm
title_full_unstemmed Multiclass risk models for ovarian malignancy: an illustration of prediction uncertainty due to the choice of algorithm
title_short Multiclass risk models for ovarian malignancy: an illustration of prediction uncertainty due to the choice of algorithm
title_sort multiclass risk models for ovarian malignancy: an illustration of prediction uncertainty due to the choice of algorithm
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10668424/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38001421
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-02103-3
work_keys_str_mv AT ledgerashleigh multiclassriskmodelsforovarianmalignancyanillustrationofpredictionuncertaintyduetothechoiceofalgorithm
AT ceustersjolien multiclassriskmodelsforovarianmalignancyanillustrationofpredictionuncertaintyduetothechoiceofalgorithm
AT valentinlil multiclassriskmodelsforovarianmalignancyanillustrationofpredictionuncertaintyduetothechoiceofalgorithm
AT testaantonia multiclassriskmodelsforovarianmalignancyanillustrationofpredictionuncertaintyduetothechoiceofalgorithm
AT vanholsbekecaroline multiclassriskmodelsforovarianmalignancyanillustrationofpredictionuncertaintyduetothechoiceofalgorithm
AT franchidorella multiclassriskmodelsforovarianmalignancyanillustrationofpredictionuncertaintyduetothechoiceofalgorithm
AT bournetom multiclassriskmodelsforovarianmalignancyanillustrationofpredictionuncertaintyduetothechoiceofalgorithm
AT froymanwouter multiclassriskmodelsforovarianmalignancyanillustrationofpredictionuncertaintyduetothechoiceofalgorithm
AT timmermandirk multiclassriskmodelsforovarianmalignancyanillustrationofpredictionuncertaintyduetothechoiceofalgorithm
AT vancalsterben multiclassriskmodelsforovarianmalignancyanillustrationofpredictionuncertaintyduetothechoiceofalgorithm