Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34722318›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021

Artificial Intelligence Combined With Big Data to Predict Lymph Node Involvement in Prostate Cancer: A Population-Based Study.

Liwei Wei, Yongdi Huang, Zheng Chen, Hongyu Lei, Xiaoping Qin, Lihong Cui, Yumin Zhuo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Artificial intelligence in prostate cancer.Chinese medical journal · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A Comparison of Systematic, Targeted, and Combined Biopsy Using Machine Learning for Prediction of Prostate Cancer Risk: A Multi-Center Study.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors.

Liwei WeiDepartment of Urology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.
Yongdi HuangCollege of Mathematics and Physics, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing, China.
Zheng ChenDepartment of Urology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.
Hongyu LeiCollege of Mathematics and Physics, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing, China.
Xiaoping QinDepartment of Urology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.
Lihong CuiCollege of Mathematics and Physics, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing, China.
Yumin ZhuoDepartment of Urology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA more accurate preoperative prediction of lymph node involvement (LNI) in prostate cancer (PCa) would improve clinical treatment and follow-up strategies of this disease. We developed a predictive model based on machine learning (ML) combined with big data to achieve this.

methodsClinicopathological characteristics of 2,884 PCa patients who underwent extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) were collected from the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2010 to 2015. Eight variables were included to establish an ML model. Model performance was evaluated by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and calibration plots for predictive accuracy. Decision curve analysis (DCA) and cutoff values were obtained to estimate its clinical utility.

resultsThree hundred and forty-four (11.9%) patients were identified with LNI. The five most important factors were the Gleason score, T stage of disease, percentage of positive cores, tumor size, and prostate-specific antigen levels with 158, 137, 128, 113, and 88 points, respectively. The XGBoost (XGB) model showed the best predictive performance and had the highest net benefit when compared with the other algorithms, achieving an area under the curve of 0.883. With a 5%~20% cutoff value, the XGB model performed best in reducing omissions and avoiding overtreatment of patients when dealing with LNI. This model also had a lower false-negative rate and a higher percentage of ePLND was avoided. In addition, DCA showed it has the highest net benefit across the whole range of threshold probabilities.

conclusionsWe established an ML model based on big data for predicting LNI in PCa, and it could lead to a reduction of approximately 50% of ePLND cases. In addition, only ≤3% of patients were misdiagnosed with a cutoff value ranging from 5% to 20%. This promising study warrants further validation by using a larger prospective dataset.

Indexed as

lymph node involvementmachine learningpredictive modelprostate cancerSEER database

Identifiers

PMID34722318
PMCPMC8551611

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.