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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |