Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33670632›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Optimized Identification of High-Grade Prostate Cancer by Combining Different PSA Molecular Forms and PSA Density in a Deep Learning Model.

Francesco Gentile, Matteo Ferro, Bartolomeo Della Ventura, Evelina La Civita, Antonietta Liotti, Michele Cennamo, Dario Bruzzese, Raffaele Velotta, Daniela Terracciano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Combining Magnetic Resonance Diffusion-Weighted Imaging with Prostate-Specific Antigen to Differentiate Between Malignant and Benign Prostate Lesions.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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.

Francesco GentileDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy.
Matteo FerroElicaDea, Spinoff of Federico II University, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9250-7858
Bartolomeo Della VenturaElicaDea, Spinoff of Federico II University, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Evelina La CivitaElicaDea, Spinoff of Federico II University, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Antonietta LiottiElicaDea, Spinoff of Federico II University, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Michele CennamoDepartment of Translational Medical Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", 80131 Naples, Italy.
Dario BruzzeseElicaDea, Spinoff of Federico II University, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Raffaele VelottaElicaDea, Spinoff of Federico II University, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1077-8353
Daniela TerraccianoElicaDea, Spinoff of Federico II University, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4296-429X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

After skin cancer, prostate cancer (PC) is the most common cancer among men. The gold standard for PC diagnosis is based on the PSA (prostate-specific antigen) test. Based on this preliminary screening, the physician decides whether to proceed with further tests, typically prostate biopsy, to confirm cancer and evaluate its aggressiveness. Nevertheless, the specificity of the PSA test is suboptimal and, as a result, about 75% of men who undergo a prostate biopsy do not have cancer even if they have elevated PSA levels. Overdiagnosis leads to unnecessary overtreatment of prostate cancer with undesirable side effects, such as incontinence, erectile dysfunction, infections, and pain. Here, we used artificial neuronal networks to develop models that can diagnose PC efficiently. The model receives as an input a panel of 4 clinical variables (total PSA, free PSA, p2PSA, and PSA density) plus age. The output of the model is an estimate of the Gleason score of the patient. After training on a dataset of 190 samples and optimization of the variables, the model achieved values of sensitivity as high as 86% and 89% specificity. The efficiency of the method can be improved even further by training the model on larger datasets.

Indexed as

artificial neural networkprostate cancerPSA densityPSA molecular formstumor markers

Identifiers

PMID33670632
PMCPMC7922417

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.