ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2020
Establishing a novel prediction model for improving the positive rate of prostate biopsy.
Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Efficiency of Age-Adjusted PSAD for Prostate Cancer and Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Construction and Nomogram Validation.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2026Article
- 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
- Construction and Comparison of Different Models in Detecting Prostate Cancer and Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Construction and Validation of a Clinical Predictive Nomogram for Improving the Cancer Detection of Prostate Naive Biopsy Based on Chinese Multicenter Clinical Data.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAt present, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is the primary evaluation index for judging the necessity of prostate cancer (PCa) biopsy. However, there is a high false-positive rate and a low predictive value due to many interference factors. In this study, we tried to find a novel prediction model that could improve the positive rate of prostate biopsy and reduce unnecessary biopsy.
methodsWe retrospectively studied 237 patients, including their age, body mass index (BMI), PSA, prostate volume (PV), prostate imaging-reporting and data system (PI-RADS) v2 score, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), biopsy Gleason score (BGS), and other information. The univariate and multivariate logistic analyses were used to screen out indicators related to PCa. After establishing a prediction formula model, we used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to assess its prediction performance.
resultsOur study found that age, PSA, PI-RADS v2 score, and diabetes significantly correlated with PCa. Based on multivariate logistic regression analysis results, we created the following prediction formula: Y = 2.599 × PI-RADS v2 score + 1.766 × diabetes + 0.052 × age + 1.005 × PSAD - 9.119. ROC curves showed the formula's threshold was 0.3543. The composite formula had an excellent capacity to detect PCa with the area under the curve (AUC) of 0.91. In addition, the composite formula also achieved significantly better sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy than PSA, PSA density (PSAD), and PI-RADS v2 score alone.
conclusionsOur predictive formula predicted performance better than PSA, PSAD, and PI-RADS v2 score. It can thus contribute to the diagnosis of PCa and be used as an indicator for prostate biopsy, thereby reducing unnecessary biopsy.
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.