Improved survival analysis by learning shared genomic information from pan-cancer data.

MOTIVATION: Recent advances in deep learning have offered solutions to many biomedical tasks. However, there remains a challenge in applying deep learning to survival analysis using human cancer transcriptome data. As the number of genes, the input variables of survival model, is larger than the amount of available cancer patient samples, deep-learning models are prone to overfitting. To address the issue, we introduce a new deep-learning architecture called VAECox. VAECox uses transfer learning and fine tuning. RESULTS: We pre-trained a variational autoencoder on all RNA-seq data in 20 TCGA datasets and transferred the trained weights to our survival prediction model. Then we fine-tuned the transferred weights during training the survival model on each dataset. Results show that our model outperformed other previous models such as Cox Proportional Hazard with LASSO and ridge penalty and Cox-nnet on the 7 of 10 TCGA datasets in terms of C-index. The results signify that the transferred information obtained from entire cancer transcriptome data helped our survival prediction model reduce overfitting and show robust performance in unseen cancer patient samples. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Our implementation of VAECox is available at https://github.com/dmis-lab/VAECox. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Evaluation of crowdsourced mortality prediction models as a framework for assessing artificial intelligence in medicine.

OBJECTIVE: Applications of machine learning in healthcare are of high interest and have the potential to improve patient care. Yet, the real-world accuracy of these models in clinical practice and on different patient subpopulations remains unclear. To address these important questions, we hosted a community challenge to evaluate methods that predict healthcare outcomes. We focused on the prediction of all-cause mortality as the community challenge question. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a Model-to-Data framework, 345 registered participants, coalescing into 25 independent teams, spread over 3 continents and 10 countries, generated 25 accurate models all trained on a dataset of over 1.1 million patients and evaluated on patients prospectively collected over a 1-year observation of a large health system. RESULTS: The top performing team achieved a final area under the receiver operator curve of 0.947 (95% CI, 0.942-0.951) and an area under the precision-recall curve of 0.487 (95% CI, 0.458-0.499) on a prospectively collected patient cohort. DISCUSSION: Post hoc analysis after the challenge revealed that models differ in accuracy on subpopulations, delineated by race or gender, even when they are trained on the same data. CONCLUSION: This is the largest community challenge focused on the evaluation of state-of-the-art machine learning methods in a healthcare system performed to date, revealing both opportunities and pitfalls of clinical AI.