Table 3 Clinical utility of EHR-based model compared to traditional risk factors and genetic variants

From: Enhancing EHR-based pancreatic cancer prediction with LLM-derived embeddings

 

CUMC

Time window (case/control)

6-12 m (338/157,067)

 

Max F1

Max PPV

Number of screening (% total pop) needed for \({\boldsymbol{x}}\)% case detection

 

TP

FP

PPV

TP

FP

PPV

\(x=20 \%\) (TP = 68)

\(x=50 \%\) (TP = 169)

\(x=80 \%\) (TP = 270)

EHR base (AUROC 0.742)

30

279

0.097

10

37

0.213

4851 (3%)

26757 (17%)

76666 (49%)

EHR gpt (AUROC 0.755)

22

134

0.141

13

43

0.232

4690 (3%)

26349 (17%)

68453 (43%)

One of risk factors

96

24950

0.004

96

24950

0.004

 

All risk factors

0

54

0.048

0

54

0.048

TP overlap

b/w model & one of risk factors

base: 18 (60%)

base: 5 (50%)

base: 43 (63%)

base: 79 (47%)

base: 94 (35%)

gpt: 13 (59%)

gpt: 7 (54%)

gpt: 48 (71%)

gpt: 72 (43%)

gpt: 90 (33%)

 

CSMC

Time window (case/control)

6-12 m (216/92,084)

 

Max F1

Max PPV

Number of screening (% total pop) needed for \({\boldsymbol{x}}\)% case detection

 

TP

FP

PPV

TP

FP

PPV

\(x=20 \%\) (TP = 43)

\(x=50 \%\) (TP = 108)

\(x=80 \%\) (TP = 172)

EHR base (AUROC 0.810)

15

164

0.084

2

1

0.667

2234 (2%)

12500 (14%)

32320 (35%)

EHR gpt (AUROC 0.830)

34

2852

0.012

1

61

0.016

4061 (4%)

11413 (12%)

25205 (27%)

One risk factors

95

14311

0.007

95

14311

0.007

 

All risk factors

1

60

0.016

1

60

0.016

Genetic variants

5

0

1

5

0

1

TP overlap

b/w model & one of risk factors

base: 2 (13%)

base: 0 (0%)

base: 6 (14%)

base: 16 (15%)

base: 19 (11%)

gpt: 1 (3%)

gpt: 0 (0%)

gpt: 2 (5%)

gpt: 14 (13%)

gpt: 18 (10%)

TP overlap

b/w model & genetic variants

base: 0 (0%)

base: 0 (0%)

base: 0 (0%)

base: 0 (0%)

base: 0 (0%)

gpt: 0 (0%)

gpt: 0 (0%)

gpt: 0 (0%)

gpt: 0 (0%)

gpt: 0 (0%)

  1. Positive predictive values (PPVs) and the number of screenings required to achieve sensitivities of 20%, 50%, and 80% are presented. For the EHR-based model, both the maximum PPVs and the PPVs at the threshold that yields the maximum F1 score are shown. We used 6–12 m model presented in Fig. 3 in this analysis.