Random survival forest algorithm for risk stratification and survival prediction in gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms

被引:2
作者
Liao, Tianbao [1 ]
Su, Tingting [2 ]
Lu, Yang [5 ]
Huang, Lina [3 ]
Wei, Wei-Yuan [4 ]
Feng, Lu-Huai [3 ]
机构
[1] Youjiang Med Univ Nationalities, Dept Presidents Off, Baise, Peoples R China
[2] Peoples Hosp Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Reg, Dept ECG Diagnost, Nanning, Peoples R China
[3] Guangxi Med Univ, Affiliated Tumor Hosp, Dept Endocrinol & Metab Nephrol, Nanning, Peoples R China
[4] Guangxi Med Univ, Affiliated Tumor Hosp, Dept Gastr & Abdominal Tumor Surg, Nanning, Peoples R China
[5] Guangxi Med Univ, Affiliated Tumor Hosp, Dept Int Med, Nanning, Peoples R China
来源
SCIENTIFIC REPORTS | 2024年 / 14卷 / 01期
关键词
Machine learning; Leave-one-out cross-validation method; Prognostic model; Risk stratification; PROGNOSIS; NOMOGRAM; TUMOR;
D O I
10.1038/s41598-024-77988-1
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
This study aimed to construct and assess a machine-learning algorithm designed to forecast survival rates and risk stratification for patients with gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (gNENs) after diagnosis. Data on patients with gNENs were extracted and randomly divided into training and validation sets using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. We developed a prediction model using 10 machine learning algorithms across 101 combinations to forecast cancer-related mortality in patients with gNENs, selecting the best model using the highest mean over a sequence of time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). The performance of the final model was assessed through time-dependent ROC curves for discrimination and calibration curves for calibration. The maximum selection rank method was used to determine the best prognostic risk score threshold for classifying patients into high- and low-risk groups. Afterward, Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test were used to compare survival rates among these groups. Our study examined 775 patients with gNENs, dividing them into training and validation sets. A training set comprised 543 patients, with a median follow-up of 42 months and cumulative mortality rates of 40.0% at 1 year, 48.6% at 3 years, and 54.0% at 5 years. A validation set comprised 232 patients, with cumulative mortality rates of 29.1% at 1 year, 43.5% at 3 years, and 53.2% at 5 years. The optimal random survival forest (RSF) model (mtry = 4, node size = 5) achieved an AUC of 0.839 for survival prediction in the training set. Comprising 11 variables such as demographics, treatment details, tumor characteristics, T staging, N staging, and M staging, the RSF model revealed high predictive accuracy with AUCs of 0.92, 0.96, and 0.96 for 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival, respectively, which was consistently reflected in the validation set with AUCs of 0.88, 0.92, and 0.89, respectively. Moreover, patients were risk-stratified. Although our RSF model effectively stratified patients into different prognostic groups, it needs external validation to confirm its utility for noninvasive prognostic prediction and risk stratification in gNENs. Further research is required to verify its broader clinical applicability.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] A novel predictive model based on preoperative blood neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio for survival prognosis in patients with gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms
    Cao, Long-Long
    Lu, Jun
    Lin, Jian-Xian
    Zheng, Chao-Hui
    Li, Ping
    Xie, Jian-Wei
    Wang, Jia-Bin
    Chen, Qi-Yue
    Lin, Mi
    Tu, Ru-Hong
    Huang, Chang-Ming
    ONCOTARGET, 2016, 7 (27) : 42045 - 42058
  • [22] An online tool for survival prediction of extrapulmonary small cell carcinoma with random forest
    Zhang, Xin
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2023, 13
  • [23] Comparison of Random Survival Forest and Cox Model for Prediction Performance: A Case Study
    Oliveira, Tiago A.
    Silva, Pedro Augusto F.
    Martins, Hiago Jose A. A.
    Pereira, Lucas C.
    Brito, Alisson L.
    Mendonca, Edndrio B.
    SIGMAE, 2019, 8 (02): : 490 - 508
  • [24] Clinicopathologic Features and Survival Outcomes for Primary Renal Neuroendocrine Neoplasms
    Yi, Zhenglin
    Liu, Renyu
    Hu, Jiao
    He, Tongchen
    Wang, Zihao
    Li, Yangle
    Zu, Xiongbing
    CLINICAL GENITOURINARY CANCER, 2021, 19 (02) : 155 - 161
  • [25] Deep learning radiomics analysis based on computed tomography for survival prediction in gastric neuroendocrine neoplasm: a multicenter study
    Yang, Zhihao
    Han, Yijing
    Li, Fei
    Zhang, Anqi
    Cheng, Ming
    Gao, Jianbo
    QUANTITATIVE IMAGING IN MEDICINE AND SURGERY, 2023, 13 (12) : 8190 - +
  • [26] Accurate Prediction and Detection of Suicidal Risk using Random Forest Algorithm
    Saravanan, N.
    Moheshkumar, G.
    Shaid, Mohammed V. M.
    Purushothman, S.
    Sanjai, Gokul, V
    2024 4TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON PERVASIVE COMPUTING AND SOCIAL NETWORKING, ICPCSN 2024, 2024, : 287 - 292
  • [27] The AUGIS Survival Predictor: Prediction of Long-Term and Conditional Survival After Esophagectomy Using Random Survival Forests
    Rahman, Saqib A.
    Walker, Robert C.
    Maynard, Nick
    Trudgill, Nigel
    Crosby, Tom A.
    Cromwell, David J.
    Underwood, Timothy
    NOGCA Project Team AUGIS
    ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2023, 277 (02) : 267 - 274
  • [28] A prediction model based on random survival forest analysis of the overall survival of elderly female papillary thyroid carcinoma patients: a SEER-based study
    Lun, Yuqiang
    Yuan, Hao
    Ma, Pengwei
    Chen, Jiawei
    Lu, Peiheng
    Wang, Weilong
    Liang, Rui
    Zhang, Junjun
    Gao, Wei
    Ding, Xuerui
    Li, Siyu
    Wang, Zi
    Guo, Jianing
    Lu, Lianjun
    ENDOCRINE, 2024, 85 (02) : 598 - 600
  • [29] Survival Random Forest to Predict Time to Fill
    Husband, Summer M.
    Roberts, Jason
    2017 17TH IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DATA MINING WORKSHOPS (ICDMW 2017), 2017, : 195 - 198
  • [30] Random survival forest for competing credit risks
    Frydman, Halina
    Matuszyk, Anna
    JOURNAL OF THE OPERATIONAL RESEARCH SOCIETY, 2022, 73 (01) : 15 - 25