Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34845536›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2022

Machine learning-based prediction of invisible intraprostatic prostate cancer lesions on

Zhilong Yi, Siqi Hu, Xiaofeng Lin, Qiong Zou, MinHong Zou, Zhanlei Zhang, Lei Xu, Ningyi Jiang, Yong Zhang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. The value of habitat analysis based onBMC medical imaging · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. End-to-end [Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Multimodal integration of [Frontiers in oncology · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zhilong Yi *Department of Nuclear Medicine, The Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8059-714X
Siqi Hu *Department of Nuclear Medicine, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6879-4132
Xiaofeng LinDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, The Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7044-7778
Qiong ZouDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6308-2259
MinHong ZouDepartment of Ultrasound, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1383-0452
Zhanlei ZhangDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5754-8582
Lei XuDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4629-7415
Ningyi JiangDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, The Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen, China. jiangny@mail.sysu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2468-6153
Yong ZhangDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. zhangyn9@mail.sysu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4909-8996
Sun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose

methodsIn this retrospective study, patients with or without prostate cancer who underwent

resultsA total of 64 patients (39 with prostate cancer and 25 with benign prostate disease) were in the training set, and 36 (21 with prostate cancer and 15 with benign prostate disease) were in the test set. The average AUCs of the three RF models from tenfold cross-validation were 0.87 (95% CI: 0.72, 1.00), 0.86 (95% CI: 0.63, 1.00), and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.69, 1.00), respectively. In the test set, the AUCs of the three trained RF models and PSAD were 0.903 (95% CI: 0.830, 0.975), 0.856 (95% CI: 0.748, 0.964), 0.925 (95% CI:0.838, 1.00), and 0.662 (95% CI: 0.510, 0.813). The AUCs of the three radiomics models were higher than that of PSAD (0.903, 0.856, and 0.925 vs. 0.662, respectively; P = .007, P = .045, and P = .005, respectively).

conclusionRandom forest models developed by

Indexed as

Positron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyProstatic NeoplasmsEdetic AcidGallium RadioisotopesHumansMachine LearningMaleRetrospective StudiesEdetic AcidGallium RadioisotopesArea under curveMachine learningPositron emission tomography-computed tomographyProstate-specific antigenProstatic neoplasmsRadiomics

Identifiers

PMID34845536
OpenAlexW3197380786

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.