Dataset Information

Survival time prediction by integrating cox proportional hazards network and distribution function network.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Cox proportional hazards model is commonly used to predict hazard ratio, which is the risk or probability of occurrence of an event of interest. However, the Cox proportional hazard model cannot directly generate an individual survival time. To do this, the survival analysis in the Cox model converts the hazard ratio to survival times through distributions such as the exponential, Weibull, Gompertz or log-normal distributions. In other words, to generate the survival time, the Cox model has to select a specific distribution over time.

Results

This study presents a method to predict the survival time by integrating hazard network and a distribution function network. The Cox proportional hazards network is adapted in DeepSurv for the prediction of the hazard ratio and a distribution function network applied to generate the survival time. To evaluate the performance of the proposed method, a new evaluation metric that calculates the intersection over union between the predicted curve and ground truth was proposed. To further understand significant prognostic factors, we use the 1D gradient-weighted class activation mapping method to highlight the network activations as a heat map visualization over an input data. The performance of the proposed method was experimentally verified and the results compared to other existing methods.

Conclusions

Our results confirmed that the combination of the two networks, Cox proportional hazards network and distribution function network, can effectively generate accurate survival time.

SUBMITTER: Baek ET

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8050908 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to establish and validate a prognostic model based on magnetic resonance imaging and clinical features to predict the survival time of patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM).MethodsIn this study, a convolutional denoising autoencoder (DAE) network combined with the loss function of the Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to extract features for survival prediction. In addition, the Kaplan-Meier curve, the Schoenfeld residual analysis, the time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve, the nomogram, and the calibration curve were performed to assess the survival prediction ability.ResultsThe concordance index (C-index) of the survival prediction model, which combines the DAE and the Cox proportional hazard regression model, reached 0.78 in the training set, 0.75 in the validation set, and 0.74 in the test set. Patients were divided into high- and low-risk groups based on the median prognostic index (PI). Kaplan-Meier curve was used for survival analysis (p = < 2e-16 in the training set, p = 3e-04 in the validation set, and p = 0.007 in the test set), which showed that the survival probability of different groups was significantly different, and the PI of the network played an influential role in the prediction of survival probability. In the residual verification of the PI, the fitting curve of the scatter plot was roughly parallel to the x-axis, and the p-value of the test was 0.11, proving that the PI and survival time were independent of each other and the survival prediction ability of the PI was less affected than survival time. The areas under the curve of the training set were 0.843, 0.871, 0.903, and 0.941; those of the validation set were 0.687, 0.895, 1.000, and 0.967; and those of the test set were 0.757, 0.852, 0.683, and 0.898.ConclusionThe survival prediction model, which combines the DAE and the Cox proportional hazard regression model, can effectively predict the prognosis of patients with GBM.

Project description:BackgroundClinical prediction rules (CPRs) should be externally validated by independent researchers. Although there are many cardiovascular CPRs, most have not been externally validated. It is not known why some CPRs are externally validated by independent researchers and others are not.MethodsWe analyzed cardiovascular risk CPRs included in a systematic review. Independent external validations were identified by forward citation searches of derivation studies. Time between the publication of a cardiovascular CPR and the first independent external validation was calculated. We assessed Kaplan-Meier estimates of the probability to have an independent external validation. Using univariable Cox regression, we explored whether characteristics of derivation (design, location, sample size, number of predictors, presentation format, validation in derivation), reporting (participants, predictors, outcomes, performance measure, information for risk calculation), and publication (journal impact factor) are associated with time to the first independent external validation.ResultsOf 125 cardiovascular risk CPRs, 29 had an independent external validation. The median follow-up was 118 months (95% CI, 99-130). The 25th percentile of event time was 122 months (95% CI, 91-299). Cardiovascular risk CPRs from the USA were 4.15 times (95% CI, 1.89-9.13) more likely to have an independent external validation. Increasing the sample size of derivation by ten times was associated with a 2.32-fold (95% CI, 1.37-3.91) increase in the probability of having an independent external validation. CPRs presented with an internal validation tend to get an independent external validation sooner (HR = 1.73, 95% CI, 0.77-3.93). CPRs reporting all the information necessary for calculating individual risk were 2.65 (95% CI, 1.01-6.96) times more likely to have an independent external validation. Publishing a cardiovascular risk CPR in a journal that has one unit higher impact factor was associated with a 6% (95% CI, 3-9) higher likelihood of an independent external validation.ConclusionsThe probability for cardiovascular risk CPRs to get an independent external validation was low even many years after their derivations. Authors of new cardiovascular risk CPRs should consider using adequate sample size, conducting an internal validation, and reporting all the information needed for risk calculation as these features were associated with an independent external validation.