A Machine Learning Approach to Prognostication in Oral Cancer: Analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database.

IF 2.1 Q2 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
Cancer Informatics Pub Date : 2026-05-25 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1177/11769351261442875
Philips Okeagu, Saranya Murukutla, Afamdi Iwuchukwu, Chukwuebuka Ogwo
{"title":"A Machine Learning Approach to Prognostication in Oral Cancer: Analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database.","authors":"Philips Okeagu, Saranya Murukutla, Afamdi Iwuchukwu, Chukwuebuka Ogwo","doi":"10.1177/11769351261442875","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To develop and validate machine learning models to predict 5-year survival in oral cancer using a large population-based registry and to rank prognostic factors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data from 1992 to 2020. After applying inclusion criteria, 39 904 patients with complete data on 21 variables were included from 53 611 cases (25.6% exclusion). Selection bias was assessed by comparing included and excluded patients. The outcome was binary 5-year survival. Four models were trained and evaluated using nested fivefold cross-validation: XGBoost, LASSO, Random Forest, and logistic regression. Performance was assessed using the Brier score, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity. Calibration was evaluated using slope and intercept with 95% confidence intervals. Model explainability used permutation feature importance and SHAP values.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Random Forest showed the best discrimination (AUC 77.6%, accuracy 71.4%, Brier 0.186) and was selected for risk stratification. However, it overestimated risk in lower deciles. Logistic regression and LASSO showed better calibration, with slopes near 1.0, but slightly lower discrimination (AUCs 75.5% and 76.9%). SHAP analysis identified localized stage as the strongest protective factor (importance 100.0), followed by age (91.1) and chemotherapy (29.3). Excluded patients had more unstaged tumors (3.9% vs 1.7%, <i>P</i> < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Random Forest provides strong risk stratification, but miscalibration limits its use for absolute risk prediction. Logistic regression and LASSO may be preferable when accurate probabilities are needed. External validation is required before clinical use.</p>","PeriodicalId":35418,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Informatics","volume":"25 ","pages":"11769351261442875"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13201935/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11769351261442875","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To develop and validate machine learning models to predict 5-year survival in oral cancer using a large population-based registry and to rank prognostic factors.

Methods: We analyzed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data from 1992 to 2020. After applying inclusion criteria, 39 904 patients with complete data on 21 variables were included from 53 611 cases (25.6% exclusion). Selection bias was assessed by comparing included and excluded patients. The outcome was binary 5-year survival. Four models were trained and evaluated using nested fivefold cross-validation: XGBoost, LASSO, Random Forest, and logistic regression. Performance was assessed using the Brier score, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity. Calibration was evaluated using slope and intercept with 95% confidence intervals. Model explainability used permutation feature importance and SHAP values.

Results: Random Forest showed the best discrimination (AUC 77.6%, accuracy 71.4%, Brier 0.186) and was selected for risk stratification. However, it overestimated risk in lower deciles. Logistic regression and LASSO showed better calibration, with slopes near 1.0, but slightly lower discrimination (AUCs 75.5% and 76.9%). SHAP analysis identified localized stage as the strongest protective factor (importance 100.0), followed by age (91.1) and chemotherapy (29.3). Excluded patients had more unstaged tumors (3.9% vs 1.7%, P < .001).

Conclusion: Random Forest provides strong risk stratification, but miscalibration limits its use for absolute risk prediction. Logistic regression and LASSO may be preferable when accurate probabilities are needed. External validation is required before clinical use.

口腔癌预测的机器学习方法:监测、流行病学和最终结果数据库的分析。
目的:开发和验证机器学习模型,通过基于人群的大规模登记来预测口腔癌患者的5年生存率,并对预后因素进行排名。方法:我们分析了1992年至2020年的监测、流行病学和最终结果(SEER)数据。应用纳入标准后,从53 611例患者中纳入了21个变量数据完整的39 904例患者(排除率为25.6%)。通过比较纳入和排除的患者来评估选择偏倚。结果是5年生存率。使用嵌套五重交叉验证对四个模型进行了训练和评估:XGBoost、LASSO、随机森林和逻辑回归。使用Brier评分、受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC)、敏感性和特异性评估疗效。使用斜率和截距(95%置信区间)评估校准。模型可解释性使用排列特征重要性和SHAP值。结果:Random Forest的鉴别效果最佳(AUC为77.6%,准确率为71.4%,Brier为0.186),可用于风险分层。然而,它高估了较低十分之一的风险。Logistic回归和LASSO的校正效果较好,斜率接近1.0,但判别系数略低(auc分别为75.5%和76.9%)。SHAP分析发现局部分期是最强的保护因素(重要性为100.0),其次是年龄(重要性为91.1)和化疗(重要性为29.3)。被排除的患者有更多的未分期肿瘤(3.9% vs 1.7%)。结论:随机森林提供了强有力的风险分层,但校准错误限制了其用于绝对风险预测。当需要精确的概率时,逻辑回归和LASSO可能更可取。临床使用前需要进行外部验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cancer Informatics
Cancer Informatics Medicine-Oncology
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.00%
发文量
30
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: The field of cancer research relies on advances in many other disciplines, including omics technology, mass spectrometry, radio imaging, computer science, and biostatistics. Cancer Informatics provides open access to peer-reviewed high-quality manuscripts reporting bioinformatics analysis of molecular genetics and/or clinical data pertaining to cancer, emphasizing the use of machine learning, artificial intelligence, statistical algorithms, advanced imaging techniques, data visualization, and high-throughput technologies. As the leading journal dedicated exclusively to the report of the use of computational methods in cancer research and practice, Cancer Informatics leverages methodological improvements in systems biology, genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and molecular biochemistry into the fields of cancer detection, treatment, classification, risk-prediction, prevention, outcome, and modeling.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书