Back

Modeling uncertainty in individual predictions of cognitive functioning for untreated glioma patients using Bayesian regression

Boelders, S. M.; Nicenboim, B.; Postma, E.; Rutten, G.-J.; Gehring, K.; Ong, S.

2024-10-08 oncology
10.1101/2024.10.08.24315003 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionCognitive impairments of patients with a glioma are increasingly considered when making treatment decisions considering a personalized onco-functional balance. Predicting cognitive functioning before surgery can serve as a steppingstone for the clinical goal of predicting cognitive functioning after surgery. However, in a previous study, machine-learning models could not reliably predict cognitive functioning before surgery using a comprehensive set of clinical variables. The current study aims to improve predictions while making the uncertainty in individual predictions explicit. MethodPre-operative cognitive functioning was predicted for 340 patients with a glioma across eight cognitive tests. This was done using six multivariate Bayesian regression models following a machine-learning approach while using a comprehensive set of clinical variables. Four models included interactions with- or a multilevel structure over histopathological diagnosis. Point-wise predictions were compared using the coefficient of determination (R2) and the best-performing model was interpreted. ResultsBayesian models outperformed machine-learning models and benefitted from using shrinkage priors. The R2 ranged between 0.3% and 21.5% with a median across tests of 7.2%. Estimated errors of individual prediction were high. The best-performing model allowed parameters to differ across histopathological diagnoses while pulling them toward the population mean. ConclusionBayesian models can improve predictions while providing uncertainty estimates for individual predictions. Despite this, the uncertainty in predictions of pre-operative cognitive functioning using the included clinical variables remained high. Consequently, clinicians should not infer cognitive functioning from these variables. Different histopathological diagnoses are best treated as distinct yet related. HighlightsO_LIBayesian regression outperformed machine-learning models. C_LIO_LIPredictions were uncertain despite improvements. C_LIO_LIDifferent histopathological diagnoses are best treated as distinct yet related. C_LI Importance of the studyCognitive impairments of patients with a glioma are increasingly considered when making treatment decisions considering a personalized onco-functional balance. Predicting cognitive functioning before surgery serves as a steppingstone for the clinical goal of predicting cognitive functioning after surgery. The current study is important for two reasons. First, it demonstrates that Bayesian models can improve predictions of pre-operative cognitive functioning over popular machine-learning models. Second, it explicitly shows that individual predictions of pre-operative cognitive functioning based on a comprehensive set of readily available clinical variables included in the current study are uncertain. Consequently, clinicians should not infer cognitive functioning from these variables. Last, it shows that prediction models may benefit a multifaceted view of patients and from treating patients with different histopathological diagnoses as distinct yet related.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.9%
2
Brain and Behavior
37 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.6%
3
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.5%
4
Neuro-Oncology Advances
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 27%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.4%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 30%
4.0%
8
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.6%
9
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.6%
10
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
11
Frontiers in Bioinformatics
45 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
12
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
13
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.4%
14
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
15
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
16
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.2%
17
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
18
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.1%
19
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 21%
1.0%
20
Journal of the Neurological Sciences
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
21
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
22
Biomedicines
66 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
23
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
24
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
25
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.7%
26
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
27
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
28
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%
29
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
30
FEBS Open Bio
29 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.5%