journal article·2025-12-09Open access

Towards Digital Twins in Prostate Cancer: A Mixture-of-Experts Framework for Multitask Prognostics in Hospital Admissions

Annette John, Reda Alhajj, Jon Rokne

Applied Sciences· Volume 15· Issue 24

Abstract

Early risk prediction is essential for hospitalized prostate cancer (PCa) patients, who face acute events, such as mortality, ICU transfer, AKI (acute kidney injury), ED30 (unplanned 30-day Emergency Department revisit), and prolonged LOS (length of stay). We developed an MMoE (Multitask Mixture-of-Experts) model that jointly predicts these outcomes from the features of the multimodal EHR (Electronic Health Records) in MIMIC-IV (3956 admissions; 2497 patients). A configuration with six experts delivered consistent gains over strong single-task baselines. On the held-out test set, the MMoE improved rare-event detection (mortality AUPRC (Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve) of 0.163 vs. 0.091, +79%) and modestly boosted ED30 discrimination (AUROC (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve) ≈0.66 with leakage-safe ClinicalBERT fusion) while maintaining competitive ICU and AKI performance. Expert-routing diagnostics (top-1 shares, entropy, and task-dead counts) revealed clinically coherent specialization (e.g., renal signals for AKI), supporting interpretability. An efficiency log showed that the model is compact and deployable (∼85 k parameters, 0.34 MB; 0.027 s/sample); it replaced five single-task predictors with a single forward pass. Overall, the MMoE offered a practical balance of accuracy, calibrated probabilities, and readable routing for the prognostic layer of digital-twin pipelines in oncology.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Machine Learning in Healthcare · Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education · AI in cancer detection

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Science, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada

Department of Computer Engineering, Istanbul Medipol University, 34810 Istanbul, Turkey

Department of Health Informatics, University of Southern Denmark, 5230 Odense, Denmark

References (57)

Show source-provided references
1. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries
2. Epidemiology of prostate cancer10.14740/wjon1191 ↗
3. National Cancer Institute, SEER Program (2025, September 14). Prostate Cancer: Cancer Stat Facts, Available online: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html.
4. Moodie, L., Ilie, G., Rutledge, R., Andreou, P., and Kirkland, S. (2020). Assessment of current mental health status in a population-based sample of Canadian men with and without a history of prostate cancer diagnosis: An analysis of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA). Front. Psychiatry, 11.10.3389/fpsyt.2020.586260 ↗
5. Risk of hospitalisation after primary treatment for prostate cancer10.1111/bju.13647 ↗
6. Riley, R.D., Pate, A., Dhiman, P., Archer, L., Martin, G.P., and Collins, G.S. (2023). Clinical prediction models and the multiverse of madness. BMC Med., 21.10.1186/s12916-023-03212-y ↗
7. John, A., Alhajj, R., and Rokne, J. (2025). A systematic review of AI as a digital twin for prostate cancer care. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed., 268.10.1016/j.cmpb.2025.108804 ↗
8. Digital twins for health: A scoping review10.1038/s41746-024-01073-0 ↗
9. Adaptive Mixtures of Local Experts10.1162/neco.1991.3.1.79 ↗
10. Ma, J., Zhao, Z., Yi, X., Chen, J., Hong, L., and Chi, E.H. (2018, January 19–23). Modeling Task Relationships in Multi-task Learning with Multi-gate Mixture-of-Experts. Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining (KDD ’18), London, UK.10.1145/3219819.3220007 ↗
11. Jiang, S., Zheng, T., Zhang, Y., Jin, Y., Yuan, L., and Liu, Z. (2024). Med-moe: Mixture of domain-specific experts for lightweight medical vision-language models. arXiv.10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.221 ↗
12. Clinical Phenotyping with an Outcomes-driven Mixture of Experts for Patient Matching and Risk Estimation10.1145/3616021 ↗
13. Switch Transformers: Scaling to Trillion Parameter Models with Simple and Efficient Sparsity
14. Jiang, A.Q., Sablayrolles, A., Roux, A., Mensch, A., Savary, B., Bamford, C., Chaplot, D.S., de las Casas, D., Hanna, E.B., and Bressand, F. (2024). Mixtral of Experts. arXiv.
15. Multitask learning and benchmarking with clinical time series data10.1038/s41597-019-0103-9 ↗
16. Multitask prediction of organ dysfunction in the intensive care unit using sequential subnetwork routing10.1093/jamia/ocab101 ↗
17. Tan, Y., Dede, M., Mohanty, V., Dou, J., Hill, H., Bernstam, E., and Chen, K. (2024). Forecasting acute kidney injury and resource utilization in ICU patients using longitudinal, multimodal models. J. Biomed. Inform., 154.10.1016/j.jbi.2024.104648 ↗
18. Deep patient representation of clinical notes via multi-task learning for mortality prediction
19. Scalable and accurate deep learning with electronic health records10.1038/s41746-018-0029-1 ↗
20. TransformEHR: Transformer-based encoder-decoder generative model to enhance prediction of disease outcomes using electronic health records10.1038/s41467-023-43715-z ↗
21. Multi-task heterogeneous graph learning on electronic health records10.1016/j.neunet.2024.106644 ↗
22. Multimodal risk prediction with physiological signals, medical images and clinical notes10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26772 ↗
23. Retain: An interpretable predictive model for healthcare using reverse time attention mechanism
24. Cui, H., Fang, X., Xu, R., Kan, X., Ho, J.C., and Yang, C. (2024). Multimodal fusion of ehr in structures and semantics: Integrating clinical records and notes with hypergraph and llm. arXiv.10.3233/SHTI250941 ↗
25. Thao, P.N.M., Dao, C.T., Wu, C., Wang, J.Z., Liu, S., Ding, J.E., Restrepo, D., Liu, F., Hung, F.M., and Peng, W.C. (2024, January 21–25). Medfuse: Multimodal ehr data fusion with masked lab-test modeling and large language models. Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Boise, ID, USA.10.1145/3627673.3679962 ↗
26. Guarrasi, V., Aksu, F., Caruso, C.M., Di Feola, F., Rofena, A., Ruffini, F., and Soda, P. (2025). A systematic review of intermediate fusion in multimodal deep learning for biomedical applications. Image Vis. Comput., 105509.10.1016/j.imavis.2025.105509 ↗
27. Liu, J., Capurro, D., Nguyen, A., and Verspoor, K. (2023). Attention-based multimodal fusion with contrast for robust clinical prediction in the face of missing modalities. J. Biomed. Inform., 145.10.1016/j.jbi.2023.104466 ↗
28. Digital Twin in manufacturing: A categorical literature review and classification10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.474 ↗
29. Physics-informed machine learning digital twin for reconstructing prostate cancer tumor growth via PSA tests10.1038/s41746-025-01890-x ↗
30. Theranostic digital twins: Concept, framework and roadmap towards personalized radiopharmaceutical therapies10.7150/thno.93973 ↗
31. Chaudhuri, A., Pash, G., Hormuth, D.A., Lorenzo, G., Kapteyn, M., Wu, C., Lima, E.A., Yankeelov, T.E., and Willcox, K. (2023). Predictive digital twin for optimizing patient-specific radiotherapy regimens under uncertainty in high-grade gliomas. Front. Artif. Intell., 6.10.3389/frai.2023.1222612 ↗
32. A pilot study on patient-specific computational forecasting of prostate cancer growth during active surveillance using an imaging-informed biomechanistic model10.1158/2767-9764.CRC-23-0449 ↗
33. Patient-specific, mechanistic models of tumor growth incorporating artificial intelligence and big data10.1146/annurev-bioeng-081623-025834 ↗
34. Eminaga, O., Abbas, M., Kunder, C., Tolkach, Y., Han, R., Brooks, J.D., Nolley, R., Semjonow, A., Boegemann, M., and West, R. (2024). Critical evaluation of artificial intelligence as a digital twin of pathologists for prostate cancer pathology. Sci. Rep., 14.10.1038/s41598-024-55228-w ↗
35. A smart IoT platform for oncology patient diagnosis based on ai: Towards the human digital twin10.1016/j.procir.2021.11.284 ↗
36. Ortiz, S., Rojas-Valenzuela, I., Rojas, F., Valenzuela, O., Herrera, L.J., and Rojas, I. (2024). Novel methodology for detecting and localizing cancer area in histopathological images based on overlapping patches. Comput. Biol. Med., 168.10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.107713 ↗
37. Kim, J.K., Lee, S.J., Hong, S.H., and Choi, I.Y. (2022). Machine-learning-based digital twin system for predicting the progression of prostate cancer. Appl. Sci., 12.10.2139/ssrn.4065220 ↗
38. Prostate cancer classification from ultrasound and MRI images using deep learning based Explainable Artificial Intelligence10.1016/j.future.2021.09.030 ↗
39. DITTO: A Visual Digital Twin for Interventions and Temporal Treatment Outcomes in Head and Neck Cancer10.1109/TVCG.2024.3456160 ↗
40. Digital twin-driven water-wave information transmission and recurrent acceleration network for remaining useful life prediction of gear box10.1088/2631-8695/adc076 ↗
41. Enhancing photovoltaic system efficiency through a digital twin framework: A comprehensive modeling approach10.1016/j.ijft.2025.101078 ↗
42. Johnson, A., Bulgarelli, L., Pollard, T., Horng, S., Celi, L.A., and Mark, R. (2021, August 23). Mimic-iv. PhysioNet. Available online: https://physionet.org/content/mimiciv/1.0/.
43. MIMIC-IV, a freely accessible electronic health record dataset10.1038/s41597-022-01899-x ↗
44. PhysioNet (2025, October 25). License for MIMIC-III Clinical Database (v1.4). Available online: https://physionet.org/content/mimiciii/view-dua/1.4/.
45. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2025, September 14). ICD-9-CM Diagnosis Code 185: Malignant Neoplasm of Prostate. Available online: https://www.icd9data.com/2015/Volume1/140-239/179-189/185/185.htm.
46. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2025, September 14). ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code C61: Malignant Neoplasm of Prostate. Available online: https://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/C00-D49/C60-C63/C61-.
47. KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for acute kidney injury10.1159/000339789 ↗
48. Chowdhury, G.G. (2010). Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval, Facet Publishing.
49. Alsentzer, E., Murphy, J.R., Boag, W., Weng, W.H., Jin, D., Naumann, T., and McDermott, M. (2019). Publicly available clinical BERT embeddings. arXiv.10.18653/v1/W19-1909 ↗
50. BioBERT: A pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining10.1093/bioinformatics/btz682 ↗
51. SMART on FHIR: A standards-based, interoperable apps platform for electronic health records10.1093/jamia/ocv189 ↗
52. Beede, E., Baylor, E., Hersch, F., Iurchenko, A., Wilcox, L., Ruamviboonsuk, P., and Vardoulakis, L.M. (2020, January 25–30). A human-centered evaluation of a deep learning system deployed in clinics for the detection of diabetic retinopathy. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu, HI, USA.10.1145/3313831.3376718 ↗
53. A comparison of deep learning performance against health-care professionals in detecting diseases from medical imaging: A systematic review and meta-analysis10.1016/S2589-7500(19)30123-2 ↗
54. Calibration drift in regression and machine learning models for acute kidney injury10.1093/jamia/ocx030 ↗
55. Multicenter comparison of machine learning methods and conventional regression for predicting clinical deterioration on the wards10.1097/CCM.0000000000001571 ↗
56. Clinician perception of a machine learning–based early warning system designed to predict severe sepsis and septic shock10.1097/CCM.0000000000003803 ↗
57. Vickers, A.J., Van Calster, B., and Steyerberg, E.W. (2016). Net benefit approaches to the evaluation of prediction models, molecular markers, and diagnostic tests. BMJ, 352.10.1136/bmj.i6 ↗