Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Cancer Survival Analysis01:21

Cancer Survival Analysis

328
Cancer survival analysis focuses on quantifying and interpreting the time from a key starting point, such as diagnosis or the initiation of treatment, to a specific endpoint, such as remission or death. This analysis provides critical insights into treatment effectiveness and factors that influence patient outcomes, helping to shape clinical decisions and guide prognostic evaluations. A cornerstone of oncology research, survival analysis tackles the challenges of skewed, non-normally...
328
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups01:20

Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups

149
Survival analysis is a cornerstone of medical research, used to evaluate the time until an event of interest occurs, such as death, disease recurrence, or recovery. Unlike standard statistical methods, survival analysis is particularly adept at handling censored data—instances where the event has not occurred for some participants by the end of the study or remains unobserved. To address these unique challenges, specialized techniques like the Kaplan-Meier estimator, log-rank test, and...
149

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Artificial Intelligence-Powered Radiotherapy for Resource-Limited Settings: Advancing Cervical and Prostate Cancer Treatment Planning With the Radiation Planning Assistant.

JCO global oncology·2026
Same author

RADIANT: A fully configurable radiotherapy dose prediction framework.

Biomedical physics & engineering express·2026
Same author

Managing Radiation Therapy Treatment Delivery Challenges: Impact of an Interprofessional Educational Series for Radiation Therapists and Radiation Oncology Residents.

Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education·2026
Same author

Clinicogenomic and Histopathologic Analyses of Supermassive Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma and the Role of Ablative Radiotherapy.

Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research·2026
Same author

Quantitative Imaging of Pyruvate Metabolism in a Patient With Anaplastic Thyroid Cancer.

Magnetic resonance in medicine·2026
Same author

Respiratory motion effects and plan robustness for lattice radiation therapy.

Frontiers in oncology·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 4, 2025

Machine Learning Algorithms for Early Detection of Bone Metastases in an Experimental Rat Model
07:15

Machine Learning Algorithms for Early Detection of Bone Metastases in an Experimental Rat Model

Published on: August 16, 2020

6.7K

Performance Comparison of 10 State-of-the-Art Machine Learning Algorithms for Outcome Prediction Modeling of

Ramon M Salazar1, Saurabh S Nair1, Alexandra O Leone1

  • 1Departments of Radiation Physics.

Advances in Radiation Oncology
|December 24, 2024
PubMed
Summary

No single machine learning algorithm excels at predicting normal tissue complications across all patient data. Comparing multiple algorithms is crucial for developing accurate outcome prediction models, aided by a new automated software tool.

More Related Videos

Predicting Treatment Response to Image-Guided Therapies Using Machine Learning: An Example for Trans-Arterial Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
04:09

Predicting Treatment Response to Image-Guided Therapies Using Machine Learning: An Example for Trans-Arterial Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Published on: October 10, 2018

8.2K
An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
05:37

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

2.0K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 4, 2025

Machine Learning Algorithms for Early Detection of Bone Metastases in an Experimental Rat Model
07:15

Machine Learning Algorithms for Early Detection of Bone Metastases in an Experimental Rat Model

Published on: August 16, 2020

6.7K
Predicting Treatment Response to Image-Guided Therapies Using Machine Learning: An Example for Trans-Arterial Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
04:09

Predicting Treatment Response to Image-Guided Therapies Using Machine Learning: An Example for Trans-Arterial Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Published on: October 10, 2018

8.2K
An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
05:37

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

2.0K

Area of Science:

  • Radiation oncology
  • Machine learning applications
  • Clinical data analysis

Background:

  • Predicting normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) is vital in radiation oncology for optimizing treatment plans and minimizing toxicity.
  • Machine learning (ML) offers potential for improving NTCP prediction accuracy using complex clinical and dosimetric data.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the predictive performance of 11 prominent ML algorithms for NTCP using clinical data from two distinct disease sites.
  • To develop a user-friendly software tool for automatically identifying the optimal ML algorithm for a given dataset.

Main Methods:

  • Toxicity data (gastrointestinal, pneumonitis, esophagitis) from 478 patients with non-small cell lung cancer and anal squamous cell carcinoma were analyzed.
  • Eleven ML algorithms were applied to predict toxicity, with models trained and tested 100 times for each dataset.
  • Performance was assessed using metrics like the area under the precision-recall curve (AUC-PR).

Main Results:

  • Algorithm performance varied significantly across different toxicity types and datasets.
  • Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) performed best for radiation esophagitis (AUC-PR: 0.807), Random Forest for gastrointestinal toxicity (0.726), and Neural Network for radiation pneumonitis (0.878).
  • Bayesian-LASSO demonstrated the best average performance across all toxicities.

Conclusions:

  • There is no universally superior ML algorithm for NTCP prediction; algorithm selection must be data-dependent.
  • Comparing multiple algorithms is essential for building robust outcome prediction models.
  • A developed graphical user interface automates the comparison of 11 ML algorithms, facilitating optimal model selection.