↓ Skip to main content

Computational prediction of multidisciplinary team decision-making for adjuvant breast cancer drug therapies: a machine learning approach

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Computational prediction of multidisciplinary team decision-making for adjuvant breast cancer drug therapies: a machine learning approach
Published in
BMC Cancer, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12885-016-2972-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frank P. Y. Lin, Adrian Pokorny, Christina Teng, Rachel Dear, Richard J. Epstein

Abstract

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are used to optimise expert decision-making about treatment options, but such expertise is not digitally transferable between centres. To help standardise medical decision-making, we developed a machine learning model designed to predict MDT decisions about adjuvant breast cancer treatments. We analysed MDT decisions regarding adjuvant systemic therapy for 1065 breast cancer cases over eight years. Machine learning classifiers with and without bootstrap aggregation were correlated with MDT decisions (recommended, not recommended, or discussable) regarding adjuvant cytotoxic, endocrine and biologic/targeted therapies, then tested for predictability using stratified ten-fold cross-validations. The predictions so derived were duly compared with those based on published (ESMO and NCCN) cancer guidelines. Machine learning more accurately predicted adjuvant chemotherapy MDT decisions than did simple application of guidelines. No differences were found between MDT- vs. ESMO/NCCN- based decisions to prescribe either adjuvant endocrine (97%, p = 0.44/0.74) or biologic/targeted therapies (98%, p = 0.82/0.59). In contrast, significant discrepancies were evident between MDT- and guideline-based decisions to prescribe chemotherapy (87%, p < 0.01, representing 43% and 53% variations from ESMO/NCCN guidelines, respectively). Using ten-fold cross-validation, the best classifiers achieved areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.940 for chemotherapy (95% C.I., 0.922-0.958), 0.899 for the endocrine therapy (95% C.I., 0.880-0.918), and 0.977 for trastuzumab therapy (95% C.I., 0.955-0.999) respectively. Overall, bootstrap aggregated classifiers performed better among all evaluated machine learning models. A machine learning approach based on clinicopathologic characteristics can predict MDT decisions about adjuvant breast cancer drug therapies. The discrepancy between MDT- and guideline-based decisions regarding adjuvant chemotherapy implies that certain non-clincopathologic criteria, such as patient preference and resource availability, are factored into clinical decision-making by local experts but not captured by guidelines.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 93 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 22%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Master 6 6%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 29 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 21%
Computer Science 15 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 31 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 October 2018.
All research outputs
#4,728,547
of 23,394,089 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#1,200
of 8,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,553
of 419,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#18
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,394,089 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,458 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 419,417 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.