ArticleProstate international2019
Machine learning methods can more efficiently predict prostate cancer compared with prostate-specific antigen density and prostate-specific antigen velocity.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence (AI) approaches to male infertility in IVF: a mapping review.European journal of medical research · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence Versus Conventional Methods for NCCN Risk Stratification in Localized Prostate Cancer (2020-2025): A Systematic Review.Prostate cancer · 2026Review
- Prediction of Prostate Cancer From Routine Laboratory Markers With Automated Machine Learning.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2025Article
- Machine learning algorithms that predict the risk of prostate cancer based on metabolic syndrome and sociodemographic characteristics: a prospective cohort study.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Health Promotion and Racial Disparity in COVID-19 Mortality Among African American Populations.Reports on global health research · 2023Article
- Development, comparison, and validation of four intelligent, practical machine learning models for patients with prostate-specific antigen in the gray zone.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Hospital-based prostate cancer screening in vietnamese men with lower urinary tract symptoms: a classification and regression tree model.BMC urology · 2022Article
- Artificial Intelligence Based Machine Learning Models Predict Sperm Parameter Upgrading after Varicocele Repair: A Multi-Institutional Analysis.The world journal of men's health · 2022Article
- On an Affordable Approach towards the Diagnosis and Care for Prostate Cancer Patients Using Urine, FTIR and Prediction Machines.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Machine Learning-Based Models Enhance the Prediction of Prostate Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Artificial intelligence for clinical oncology.Cancer cell · 2021Review
- PSA-based machine learning model improves prostate cancer risk stratification in a screening population.World journal of urology · 2021Article
- Application of Machine Learning Algorithms in Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Classification.International journal of science academic research · 2021Article
- Prediction of Pathological Upgrading at Radical Prostatectomy in Prostate Cancer Eligible for Active Surveillance: A Texture Features and Machine Learning-Based Analysis of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Maps.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- Perceptions, Attitudes, and Concerns on Artificial Intelligence Applications in Patients with Cancer.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
- Robust Logistic Regression-based Diagnosis Method of Prostate Cancer Using Optimized Feature Selection on Race Specific Gene-expression Datasets.Cancer diagnosis & prognosisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.