Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31485436›Full record

ArticleProstate international2019

Machine learning methods can more efficiently predict prostate cancer compared with prostate-specific antigen density and prostate-specific antigen velocity.

Satoshi Nitta, Masakazu Tsutsumi, Shotaro Sakka, Tsuyoshi Endo, Kenichiro Hashimoto, Morikuni Hasegawa, Takayuki Hayashi, Koji Kawai, Hiroyuki Nishiyama

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Prostate international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Satoshi NittaThe Department of Urology, Hitachi General Hospital, Hitachi City, Japan.
Masakazu TsutsumiThe Department of Urology, Hitachi General Hospital, Hitachi City, Japan.
Shotaro SakkaThe Department of Urology, Hitachi General Hospital, Hitachi City, Japan.
Tsuyoshi EndoThe Department of Urology, Hitachi General Hospital, Hitachi City, Japan.
Kenichiro HashimotoThe Department of Information Systems, Hitachi General Hospital, Hitachi City, Japan.
Morikuni HasegawaInformation and Communication Technology Business Division, Hitachi Ltd., Chiyoda City, Japan.
Takayuki HayashiInformation and Communication Technology Business Division, Hitachi Ltd., Chiyoda City, Japan.
Koji KawaiThe Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba City, Japan.
Hiroyuki NishiyamaThe Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba City, Japan.
Hitachi General Hospital · JPHitachi (Japan) · JPUniversity of Tsukuba · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProstate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer has been widely performed, but its accuracy is unsatisfactory. To improve accuracy, building an effective statistical model using machine learning methods (MLMs) is a promising approach.

methodsData on continuous changes in the PSA level over the past 2 years were accumulated from 512 patients who underwent prostate biopsy after PSA screening. The age of the patients, PSA level, prostate volumes, and white blood cell count in urinalysis were used as input data for the MLMs. As MLMs, we evaluated the efficacy of three different techniques: artificial neural networks (ANNs), random forest, and support vector machine. Model performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared with the PSA level and the conventional PSA-based parameters: PSA density and PSA velocity.

resultsWhen using two annual PSA testing, all receiver operating characteristic curves of the three MLMs were above the curve for the PSA level, PSA density, and PSA velocity. The AUCs of ANNs, random forest, and support vector machine were 0.69, 0.64, and 0.63, respectively. Those values were higher than the AUCs of the PSA level, PSA density, and PSA velocity, 0.53, 0.41, and 0.55, respectively. The accuracies of the MLMs (71.6% to 72.1%) were also superior to those of the PSA level (39.1%), PSA density (49.7%), and PSA velocity (54.9%). Among the MLMs, ANNs showed the most favorable AUC. The MLMs showed higher sensitivity and specificity than conventional PSA-based parameters. The model performance did not improve when using three annual PSA testing.

conclusionThe present retrospective study results indicate that machine learning techniques can predict prostate cancer with significantly better AUCs than those of PSA density and PSA velocity.

Indexed as

Machine leaning methodProstate cancerProstate-specific antigen

Identifiers

PMID31485436
PMCPMC6713794
OpenAlexW2913538183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.