ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023
A comparison of machine learning models for predicting urinary incontinence in men with localized prostate cancer.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
- Development and validation of a prediction model for moderate-to-severe radiation dermatitis in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A machine learning study.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- Prospective evaluation of acute side effects profiles in moderately hypofractionated whole-pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Multimodal artificial intelligence in urologic precision oncology: from algorithm to translational medicine (a systemized narrative review).Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Machine learning-based nomogram for predicting depressive symptoms in women: A cross-sectional study in Guangdong Province, China.World journal of psychiatry · 2025Article
- Using artificial intelligence to predict patient outcomes from patient-reported outcome measures: a scoping review.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Article
- Comparison of machine learning and nomogram to predict 30-day in-hospital mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction combined with cardiogenic shock: a retrospective study based on the eICU-CRD and MIMIC-IV databases.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Phenotypic stratification predicts the pace, but not the outcome, of continence recovery after radical prostatectomy.PloS one · 2025Article
- The value of PROMs for predicting erectile dysfunction in prostate cancer patients with Bayesian network.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Serological Biomarker-Based Machine Learning Models for Predicting the Relapse of Ulcerative Colitis.Journal of inflammation research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Urinary incontinence (UI) is a common side effect of prostate cancer treatment, but in clinical practice, it is difficult to predict. Machine learning (ML) models have shown promising results in predicting outcomes, yet the lack of transparency in complex models known as "black-box" has made clinicians wary of relying on them in sensitive decisions. Therefore, finding a balance between accuracy and explainability is crucial for the implementation of ML models. The aim of this study was to employ three different ML classifiers to predict the probability of experiencing UI in men with localized prostate cancer 1-year and 2-year after treatment and compare their accuracy and explainability. Methods: We used the ProZIB dataset from the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (Integraal Kankercentrum Nederland; IKNL) which contained clinical, demographic, and PROM data of 964 patients from 65 Dutch hospitals. Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), and Support Vector Machine (SVM) algorithms were applied to predict (in)continence after prostate cancer treatment. Results: All models have been externally validated according to the TRIPOD Type 3 guidelines and their performance was assessed by accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC. While all three models demonstrated similar performance, LR showed slightly better accuracy than RF and SVM in predicting the risk of UI one year after prostate cancer treatment, achieving an accuracy of 0.75, a sensitivity of 0.82, and an AUC of 0.79. All models for the 2-year outcome performed poorly in the validation set, with an accuracy of 0.6 for LR, 0.65 for RF, and 0.54 for SVM. Conclusion: The outcomes of our study demonstrate the promise of using non-black box models, such as LR, to assist clinicians in recognizing high-risk patients and making informed treatment choices. The coefficients of the LR model show the importance of each feature in predicting results, and the generated nomogram provides an accessible illustration of how each feature impacts the predicted outcome. Additionally, the model's simplicity and interpretability make it a more appropriate option in scenarios where comprehending the model's predictions is essential.
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.