Back

Transforming Patient Voices into Early Predictors of Survival Using Nonlinear Mixed-Effect Models and AI/ML for Patient-Centered Decision-Making

Zhang, C.; Xia, P.; Wang, W.; Slim, G.; Muluneh, B.; Jansen, J. R.; Wagner, L. I.; Wood, W. A.; Yao, H.; Hughes, J. H.; Basch, E.; Zhou, J.

2026-05-03 oncology
10.64898/2026.04.30.26352154 medRxiv
Show abstract

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) capture the patient voice and have been associated with improved clinical outcomes in oncology, but their prognostic and predictive value remains underutilized due to challenges in interpreting these highly variable and noisy PRO data. Here, we developed a quantitative modeling framework integrating nonlinear mixed-effects (NLME) and item response theory (IRT) to characterize symptom-level PRO trajectories and transform them into clinically actionable predictors. Using longitudinal PRO data from 589 patients with metastatic cancers in the PRO-TECT trial, we modeled 332,920 symptom responses to estimate patient-specific PRO trajectory parameters while accounting for variability and noise. IRT-NLME modeling captured heterogeneous symptom-level PRO dynamics and is more informative than modeling with composite PRO scores. PRO trajectory parameters were strongly associated with overall survival, acute care utilization, and treatment modifications. Machine learning models leveraging these parameters achieved robust prediction of survival (AUC-ROC 0.80) and retained prognostic performance using the first 30 - 180 days of PRO observations, with AUCs of 0.69-0.78. Similar predictive performance was observed for hospitalization (AUC 0.75), emergency department visit (AUC 0.65), treatment discontinuation (AUC 0.71), and dose reduction (AUC 0.67). These findings demonstrate that longitudinal PRO trajectories can serve as early, patient-centered biomarkers of clinical risk. By converting complex symptom data into interpretable and predictive metrics, this quantitative framework provides a practical pathway to integrate the patient voice into clinical decision-making and advance precision oncology. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03249090

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Clinical Cancer Research
58 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.3%
2
Cancer Cell
38 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.2%
3
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
6.2%
4
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
5
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 31%
6.2%
6
Nature Cancer
35 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.2%
7
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
50% of probability mass above
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 38%
3.5%
9
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 11%
2.8%
10
Cancer Research
116 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
11
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.0%
12
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 43%
1.7%
13
European Journal of Cancer
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
14
Cancer Discovery
61 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
15
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.6%
16
Nature Machine Intelligence
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
17
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 36%
1.5%
18
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
19
Molecular Cancer
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
20
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
21
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
22
Med
38 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
23
Cancer Research Communications
46 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
24
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
25
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
26
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
27
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
16 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
28
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 33%
0.7%
29
Journal of Translational Medicine
46 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
30
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 21%
0.7%