ArticleBMC urology2021
Development and head-to-head comparison of machine-learning models to identify patients requiring prostate biopsy.
Article in BMC urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based tools in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Risk calculators for the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2024Pooled 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 biopsy outcomes at different cut-offs of prostate-specific antigen using machine learning: a multicenter study.Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Prostate Biopsy Necessity Using PSA, MRI, and Hematologic Parameters.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- CT-based conventional radiomics and quantification of intratumoral heterogeneity for predicting benign and malignant renal lesions.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024Article
- Joint models for dynamic prediction in localised prostate cancer: a literature review.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Review
- Anti-Ebola: an initiative to predict Ebola virus inhibitors through machine learning.Molecular diversity · 2022Article
- Machine Learning-Based Models Enhance the Prediction of Prostate Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMachine learning has many attractive theoretic properties, specifically, the ability to handle non predefined relations. Additionally, studies have validated the clinical utility of mpMRI for the detection and localization of CSPCa (Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4). In this study, we sought to develop and compare machine-learning models incorporating mpMRI parameters with traditional logistic regression analysis for prediction of PCa (Gleason score ≥ 3 + 3) and CSPCa on initial biopsy.
methodsA total of 688 patients with no prior prostate cancer diagnosis and tPSA ≤ 50 ng/ml, who underwent mpMRI and prostate biopsy were included between 2016 and 2020. We used four supervised machine-learning algorithms in a hypothesis-free manner to build models to predict PCa and CSPCa. The machine-learning models were compared to the logistic regression analysis using AUC, calibration plot, and decision curve analysis.
resultsThe artificial neural network (ANN), support vector machine (SVM), and random forest (RF) yielded similar diagnostic accuracy with logistic regression, while classification and regression tree (CART, AUC = 0.834 and 0.867) had significantly lower diagnostic accuracy than logistic regression (AUC = 0.894 and 0.917) in prediction of PCa and CSPCa (all P < 0.05). However, the CART illustrated best calibration for PCa (SSR = 0.027) and CSPCa (SSR = 0.033). The ANN, SVM, RF, and LR for PCa had higher net benefit than CART across the threshold probabilities above 5%, and the five models for CSPCa displayed similar net benefit across the threshold probabilities below 40%. The RF (53% and 57%, respectively) and SVM (52% and 55%, respectively) for PCa and CSPCa spared more unnecessary biopsies than logistic regression (35% and 47%, respectively) at 95% sensitivity for detection of CSPCa.
conclusionMachine-learning models (SVM and RF) yielded similar diagnostic accuracy and net benefit, while spared more biopsies at 95% sensitivity for detection of CSPCa, compared with logistic regression. However, no method achieved desired performance. All methods should continue to be explored and used in complementary ways.
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.