Ma, Sisi

Abstract Modern AI-based clinical decision support models owe their success in part to the very large number of predictors they use. Safe and robust decision support, especially for intervention planning, requires causal, not associative, relationships. Traditional methods of causal discovery, clinical trials and extracting biochemical pathways, are resource intensive and may not scale up to the number and complexity of relationships sufficient for precision treatment planning. Computational causal structure discovery (CSD) from electronic health records (EHR) data can represent a solution, however, current CSD methods fall short on EHR data. This paper presents a CSD method tailored to the EHR data. The application of the proposed methodology was demonstrated on type-2 diabetes mellitus. A large EHR dataset from Mayo Clinic was used as development cohort, and another large dataset from an independent health system, M Health Fairview, as external validation cohort. The proposed method achieved very high recall (.95) and substantially higher precision than the general-purpose methods (.84 versus .29, and .55). The causal relationships extracted from the development and external validation cohorts had a high (81%) overlap. Due to the adaptations to EHR data, the proposed method is more suitable for use in clinical decision support than the general-purpose methods.

Abstract Purpose: Predicting surgical outcome could improve individualizing treatment strategies for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. It has been suggested earlier that gene expression signatures (GES) might harbor the potential to predict surgical outcome. Experimental Design: Data derived from high-grade serous tumor tissue of FIGO stage IIIC/IV patients of AGO-OVAR11 trial were used to generate a transcriptome profiling. Previously identified molecular signatures were tested. A theoretical model was implemented to evaluate the impact of medically associated factors for residual disease (RD) on the performance of GES that predicts RD status. Results: A total of 266 patients met inclusion criteria, of those, 39.1% underwent complete resection. Previously reported GES did not predict RD in this cohort. Similarly, The Cancer Genome Atlas molecular subtypes, an independent de novo signature and the total gene expression dataset using all 21,000 genes were not able to predict RD status. Medical reasons for RD were identified as potential limiting factors that impact the ability to use GES to predict RD. In a center with high complete resection rates, a GES which would perfectly predict tumor biological RD would have a performance of only AUC 0.83, due to reasons other than tumor biology. Conclusions: Previously identified GES cannot be generalized. Medically associated factors for RD may be the main obstacle to predict surgical outcome in an all-comer population of patients with advanced ovarian cancer. If biomarkers derived from tumor tissue are used to predict outcome of patients with cancer, selection bias should be focused on to prevent overestimation of the power of such a biomarker. See related commentary by Handley and Sood, p. 9