Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Feb;37(2):234-242.
doi: 10.1177/0272989X16662654. Epub 2016 Aug 19.

Risk Assessment for Venous Thromboembolism in Chemotherapy-Treated Ambulatory Cancer Patients

Affiliations

Risk Assessment for Venous Thromboembolism in Chemotherapy-Treated Ambulatory Cancer Patients

Patrizia Ferroni et al. Med Decis Making. 2017 Feb.

Abstract

Objective: To design a precision medicine approach aimed at exploiting significant patterns in data, in order to produce venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk predictors for cancer outpatients that might be of advantage over the currently recommended model (Khorana score).

Design: Multiple kernel learning (MKL) based on support vector machines and random optimization (RO) models were used to produce VTE risk predictors (referred to as machine learning [ML]-RO) yielding the best classification performance over a training (3-fold cross-validation) and testing set.

Results: Attributes of the patient data set ( n = 1179) were clustered into 9 groups according to clinical significance. Our analysis produced 6 ML-RO models in the training set, which yielded better likelihood ratios (LRs) than baseline models. Of interest, the most significant LRs were observed in 2 ML-RO approaches not including the Khorana score (ML-RO-2: positive likelihood ratio [+LR] = 1.68, negative likelihood ratio [-LR] = 0.24; ML-RO-3: +LR = 1.64, -LR = 0.37). The enhanced performance of ML-RO approaches over the Khorana score was further confirmed by the analysis of the areas under the Precision-Recall curve (AUCPR), and the approaches were superior in the ML-RO approaches (best performances: ML-RO-2: AUCPR = 0.212; ML-RO-3-K: AUCPR = 0.146) compared with the Khorana score (AUCPR = 0.096). Of interest, the best-fitting model was ML-RO-2, in which blood lipids and body mass index/performance status retained the strongest weights, with a weaker association with tumor site/stage and drugs.

Conclusions: Although the monocentric validation of the presented predictors might represent a limitation, these results demonstrate that a model based on MKL and RO may represent a novel methodological approach to derive VTE risk classifiers. Moreover, this study highlights the advantages of optimizing the relative importance of groups of clinical attributes in the selection of VTE risk predictors.

Keywords: cancer; clinical decision support systems; machine learning; random optimization; venous thromboembolism.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources