ArticleCancer management and research2020
Predicting Prostate Cancer Upgrading of Biopsy Gleason Grade Group at Radical Prostatectomy Using Machine Learning-Assisted Decision-Support Models.
Article in Cancer management and research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Underestimation of Prostate Cancer Grade in Transperineal Fusion Biopsy and Its Predictive Factors: Correlation of Biopsy Findings with Post-Da Vinci Radical Prostatectomy Specimens.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- 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 and validation of a clinical nomogram based on lasso-logistic regression for predicting prostate cancer with PSA 4-20.0 ng/mL: a retrospective study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Machine learning models for predicting prostate cancer recurrence and identifying potential molecular biomarkers.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Machine learning discrimination of Gleason scores below GG3 and above GG4 for HSPC patients diagnosis.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- PSA doubling time 4.65 months as an optimal cut-off of Japanese nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Machine learning prediction of Gleason grade group upgrade between in-bore biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Machine-learning predicts time-series prognosis factors in metastatic prostate cancer patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Pathological Upgrade From Combined Transperineal Systematic and MRI-Targeted Prostate Biopsy to Final Pathology: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Discriminatory Gleason grade group signatures of prostate cancer: An application of machine learning methods.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to develop a machine learning (ML)-assisted model capable of accurately predicting the probability of biopsy Gleason grade group upgrading before making treatment decisions.
methodsWe retrospectively collected data from prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Four ML-assisted models were developed from 16 clinical features using logistic regression (LR), logistic regression optimized by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (Lasso) regularization (Lasso-LR), random forest (RF), and support vector machine (SVM). The area under the curve (AUC) was applied to determine the model with the highest discrimination. Calibration plots and decision curve analysis (DCA) were performed to evaluate the calibration and clinical usefulness of each model.
resultsA total of 530 PCa patients were included in this study. The Lasso-LR model showed good discrimination with an AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.776, 0.712, 0.679, 0.745, 0.730, and 0.695, respectively, followed by SVM (AUC=0.740, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.690-0.790), LR (AUC=0.725, 95% CI=0.674-0.776) and RF (AUC=0.666, 95% CI=0.618-0.714). Validation of the model showed that the Lasso-LR model had the best discriminative power (AUC=0.735, 95% CI=0.656-0.813), followed by SVM (AUC=0.723, 95% CI=0.644-0.802), LR (AUC=0.697, 95% CI=0.615-0.778) and RF (AUC=0.607, 95% CI=0.531-0.684) in the testing dataset. Both the Lasso-LR and SVM models were well-calibrated. DCA plots demonstrated that the predictive models except RF were clinically useful.
conclusionThe Lasso-LR model had good discrimination in the prediction of patients at high risk of harboring incorrect Gleason grade group assignment, and the use of this model may be greatly beneficial to urologists in treatment planning, patient selection, and the decision-making process for PCa patients.
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.