Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
Development of a prediction model for clinically-relevant fatigue: a multi-cancer approach.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Adiprakoso Dhirendra, Katsimpokis Dimitris, Oerlemans Simone, Ezendam Nicole P M, van Maaren Marissa C, van Til Janine A, van der Heijden Thijs G W, Mols Floortje, Aben Katja K H, Vink Geraldine R, Koopman Miriam, van de Poll-Franse Lonneke V, de Rooij Belle H
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Fatigue is the most prevalent symptom across cancer types. To support clinicians in providing fatigue-related supportive care, this study aims to develop and compare models predicting clinically relevant fatigue (CRF) occurring between two and three years after diagnosis, and to assess the validity of the best-performing model across diverse cancer populations.
METHODS: Patients with non-metastatic bladder, colorectal, endometrial, ovarian, or prostate cancer who completed a questionnaire within three months after diagnosis and a subsequent questionnaire between two and three years thereafter, were included. Predictor variables included clinical, socio-demographic, and patient-reported variables. The outcome was CRF (EORTC QLQC30 fatigue ≥ 39). Logistic regression using LASSO selection was compared to more advanced Machine Learning (ML) based models, including Extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), support vector machines (SVM), and artificial neural networks (ANN). Internal-external cross-validation was conducted on the best-performing model.
RESULTS: 3160 patients were included. The logistic regression model had the highest C-statistic (0.77) and balanced accuracy (0.65), both indicating good discrimination between patients with and without CRF. However, sensitivity was low across all models (0.22-0.37). Following internal-external validation, performance across cancer types was consistent (C-statistics 0.73-0.82).
CONCLUSION: Although the models' discrimination was good, the low balanced accuracy and poor calibration in the presence of CRF indicates a relatively high likelihood of underdiagnosis of future CRF. Yet, the clinical applicability of the model remains uncertain. The logistic regression performed better than the ML-based models and was robust across cohorts, suggesting an advantage of simpler models to predict CRF.
METHODS: Patients with non-metastatic bladder, colorectal, endometrial, ovarian, or prostate cancer who completed a questionnaire within three months after diagnosis and a subsequent questionnaire between two and three years thereafter, were included. Predictor variables included clinical, socio-demographic, and patient-reported variables. The outcome was CRF (EORTC QLQC30 fatigue ≥ 39). Logistic regression using LASSO selection was compared to more advanced Machine Learning (ML) based models, including Extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), support vector machines (SVM), and artificial neural networks (ANN). Internal-external cross-validation was conducted on the best-performing model.
RESULTS: 3160 patients were included. The logistic regression model had the highest C-statistic (0.77) and balanced accuracy (0.65), both indicating good discrimination between patients with and without CRF. However, sensitivity was low across all models (0.22-0.37). Following internal-external validation, performance across cancer types was consistent (C-statistics 0.73-0.82).
CONCLUSION: Although the models' discrimination was good, the low balanced accuracy and poor calibration in the presence of CRF indicates a relatively high likelihood of underdiagnosis of future CRF. Yet, the clinical applicability of the model remains uncertain. The logistic regression performed better than the ML-based models and was robust across cohorts, suggesting an advantage of simpler models to predict CRF.