Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35875103›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022

Machine Learning-Based Models Enhance the Prediction of Prostate Cancer.

Sunmeng Chen, Tengteng Jian, Changliang Chi, Yi Liang, Xiao Liang, Ying Yu, Fengming Jiang, Ji Lu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Predicting surgical intervention in paediatric cervical abscesses using machine learning: a comparative analysis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

8 authors.

Sunmeng ChenDepartment of Urology, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Tengteng JianDepartment of Urology, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Changliang ChiDepartment of Urology, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Yi LiangSchool of Business and Management, Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Xiao LiangSchool of Business and Management, Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Ying YuDepartment of Urology, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Fengming JiangDepartment of Urology, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Ji LuDepartment of Urology, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: PSA is currently the most commonly used screening indicator for prostate cancer. However, it has limited specificity for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. We aim to construct machine learning-based models and enhance the prediction of prostate cancer. Methods: The data of 551 patients who underwent prostate biopsy were retrospectively retrieved and divided into training and test datasets in a 3:1 ratio. We constructed five PCa prediction models with four supervised machine learning algorithms, including tPSA univariate logistic regression (LR), multivariate LR, decision tree (DT), random forest (RF), and support vector machine (SVM). The five prediction models were compared based on model performance metrics, such as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, calibration curve, and clinical decision curve analysis (DCA). Results: All five models had good calibration in the training dataset. In the training dataset, the RF, DT, and multivariate LR models showed better discrimination, with AUCs of 1.0, 0.922 and 0.91, respectively, than the tPSA univariate LR and SVM models. In the test dataset, the multivariate LR model exhibited the best discrimination (AUC=0.918). The multivariate LR model and SVM model had better extrapolation and generalizability, with little change in performance between the training and test datasets. Compared with the DCA curves of the tPSA LR model, the other four models exhibited better net clinical benefits. Conclusion: The results of the current retrospective study suggest that machine learning techniques can predict prostate cancer with significantly better AUC, accuracy, and net clinical benefits.

Indexed as

machine learningprediction modelsprostate biopsyprostate cancerprostate-specific antigen

Identifiers

PMID35875103
PMCPMC9299367

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.