Machine learning combining FIT with up to 1,025 clinical variables: limited referral reduction but potential for faster diagnosis
Tamm, A.; Shine, B.; James, T.; Withers, J.; Salih, H.; East, J. E.; Oke, J.; Davies, J.; Morris, E. J.; Nicholson, B. D.
Show abstract
Background The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is central to triaging symptomatic patients with suspected colorectal cancer (CRC) in UK primary care, yet only about one in eleven patients above the NICE 10 ug/g threshold have CRC. Existing prediction models attempting to improve on FIT have relied on conventional statistics and limited predictors. Methods GP-requested FITs with linked data (Jan 2017 - May 2025) were extracted from the Oxford University Hospitals (OUH) datawarehouse. Patients aged [≥]18 with core bloods and 180-day CRC follow-up were included. Machine learning (ML) models were trained on up to 1,025 predictors: FIT, age, sex, blood tests and their time series slopes, diagnoses/procedures/prescriptions, deprivation, BMI, and ethnicity. Models comprised penalised logistic regression, generalised additive models (EBM, NAM, SNAM, NODE-GAM), decision tree ensembles (random forests, XGBoost), and a multilayer perceptron. Referral reduction versus FIT [≥]10 ug/g was evaluated at model risk score thresholds capturing the same cancers (conservative) or same proportion of cancers (less conservative) as FIT. Potential to prioritise referred patients was assessed by examining whether positive predictive value (PPV) is very high (>30%) at any substantial sensitivity (>10%). Nested twice-repeated five-fold cross-validation provided unbiased estimates. An existing COLOFIT model was evaluated alongside. Findings 62,219 individuals (746 CRC) were analysed; 30,862 patients (315 CRC) with high/low risk symptoms and buffered FITs formed the primary subset. At [≥]10 ug/g, FIT had 91.4% sensitivity, 84.2% specificity, 5.6% PPV, and 99.9% NPV. No model reduced referrals when required to capture the same cancers as in the FIT [≥]10 ug/g cohort. Generalised additive models achieved up to 18.5% referral reduction when detecting the same proportion but some different cancers as FIT [≥]10 ug/g (EBM: 18.5%, NODE-GAM: 17.5%, SNAM: 17.4%, COLOFIT: 16.7%). At 30% sensitivity, EBM, NAM and NODE-GAM had average PPVs between 34.6%-35.0%, while FIT had a PPV of 14.6%. Interpretation Generalised additive models (GAMs) reduced referrals on average by 19% if a small proportion of the FIT-positive CRCs were substituted with originally FIT-negative CRCs by the models. No model, including COLOFIT, reduced referrals while capturing all FIT-positive cancers. Generalised additive models could detect about a third of CRCs faster, as one in three patients flagged by the models had CRC at 30% sensitivity. Funding EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Health Data Science; National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre; Cancer Research UK. Keywords Colorectal cancer, faecal immunochemical test, machine learning, positive predictive value
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and validation of AI-based pre-screening of large bowel biopsies 94%
- Real-world evaluation of AI-driven COVID-19 triage for emergency admissions: External validation & operational assessment of lab-free and high-throughput screening solutions 92%
- Multicenter Validation of a Machine Learning Algorithm for Diagnosing Pediatric Patients with Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome and Kawasaki Disease 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Diagnostic performance of the faecal immunochemical test for patients with low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer in primary care: a service evaluation in the South West of England 92%
- CA125 and age-based models for ovarian cancer detection in primary care: a population-based external validation study 92%
- Molecular pathways in post-colonoscopy versus detected colorectal cancers: results from a nested case-control study 91%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- The impact of COVID-19 on population cancer screening programs in Australia: modelled evaluations for breast, bowel and cervical cancer 93%
- Unequal Recovery in Colorectal Cancer Screening Following the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Comparative Microsimulation Analysis 91%
- Predicting the effect of statins on cancer risk using genetic variants: a Mendelian randomization study in UK Biobank 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Machine learning approach to dynamic risk modeling of mortality in COVID-19: a UK Biobank study 93%
- Developing And Validating COVID-19 Adverse Outcome Risk Prediction Models From A Bi-National European Cohort Of 5594 Patients 92%
- Identification of patients at risk for pancreatic cancer in a 3-year timeframe based on machine learning algorithms 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.