Cited by 26Artificial Intelligence in HealthcareCancer survivorship and careAI in cancer detection

Machine Learning Approaches to Predict Symptoms in People With Cancer: Systematic Review

Open access
Zeinali, Nahid, Youn, Nayung, Albashayreh, Alaa, Fan, Weiguo, Gilbertson White, Stéphanie·2024·JMIR Cancer

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: People with cancer frequently experience severe and distressing symptoms associated with cancer and its treatments. Predicting symptoms in patients with cancer continues to be a significant challenge for both clinicians and researchers. The rapid evolution of machine learning (ML) highlights the need for a current systematic review to improve cancer symptom prediction. Objective: This systematic review aims to synthesize the literature that has used ML algorithms to predict the development of cancer symptoms and to identify the predictors of these symptoms. This is essential for integrating new developments and identifying gaps in existing literature. Methods: We conducted this systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist. We conducted a systematic search of CINAHL, Embase, and PubMed for English records published from 1984 to August 11, 2023, using the following search terms: cancer, neoplasm, specific symptoms, neural networks, machine learning, specific algorithm names, and deep learning. All records that met the eligibility criteria were individually reviewed by 2 coauthors, and key findings were extracted and synthesized. We focused on studies using ML algorithms to predict cancer symptoms, excluding nonhuman research, technical reports, reviews, book chapters, conference proceedings, and inaccessible full texts. Results: A total of 42 studies were included, the majority of which were published after 2017. Most studies were conducted in North America (18/42, 43%) and Asia (16/42, 38%). The sample sizes in most studies (27/42, 64%) typically ranged from 100 to 1000 participants. The most prevalent category of algorithms was supervised ML, accounting for 39 (93%) of the 42 studies. Each of the methods—deep learning, ensemble classifiers, and unsupervised ML—constituted 3 (3%) of the 42 studies. The ML algorithms with the best performance were logistic regression (9/42, 17%), random forest (7/42, 13%), artificial neural networks (5/42, 9%), and decision trees (5/42, 9%). The most commonly included primary cancer sites were the head and neck (9/42, 22%) and breast (8/42, 19%), with 17 (41%) of the 42 studies not specifying the site. The most frequently studied symptoms were xerostomia (9/42, 14%), depression (8/42, 13%), pain (8/42, 13%), and fatigue (6/42, 10%). The significant predictors were age, gender, treatment type, treatment number, cancer site, cancer stage, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, chronic diseases, comorbidities, physical factors, and psychological factors. Conclusions: This review outlines the algorithms used for predicting symptoms in individuals with cancer. Given the diversity of symptoms people with cancer experience, analytic approaches that can handle complex and nonlinear relationships are critical. This knowledge can pave the way for crafting algorithms tailored to a specific symptom. In addition, to improve prediction precision, future research should compare cutting-edge ML strategies such as deep learning and ensemble methods with traditional statistical models.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/52322

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

2 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Geron, A., Hands-On Machine Learning with Scikit-Learn, Keras, and TensorFlow: Concepts, Tools, and Techniques to Build Intelligent Systems. 15 October 2019: O'Reilly Media, Inc. 859. ISBN: 9781492032649

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zeinali, N., Youn, N., Albashayreh, A., Fan, W., & Gilbertson White, S.
Affiliations
University of Iowa (US)
Venue
JMIR Cancer
Published
2024-03-19
Volume
10
Pages
e52322
ISSN
2369-1999 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4391039240
Cited by
26
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 3
FWCI
2.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (P30CA086862)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
Keywords
machine learning, xerostomia, depression, fatigue, nausea and vomiting, cognitive impairment, sleep disorders, head and neck cancer, breast cancer, supervised learning, random forest, artificial neural networks, logistic regression, ensemble classifiers, unsupervised learning, deep learning, symptom burden

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review