Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37124522›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023

A comparison of machine learning models for predicting urinary incontinence in men with localized prostate cancer.

Hajar Hasannejadasl, Biche Osong, Inigo Bermejo, Henk van der Poel, Ben Vanneste, Joep van Roermund, Katja Aben, Zhen Zhang, Lambertus Kiemeney, Inge Van Oort and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

15 authors.

Hajar HasannejadaslDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Biche OsongDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Inigo BermejoDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Henk van der PoelDepartment of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, and Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Ben VannesteDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Joep van RoermundDepartment of Urology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Katja AbenDepartment of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Zhen ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Lambertus KiemeneyRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Inge Van OortDepartment of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Renee VerweyCenter of Expertise for Innovative Care and Technology (EIZT), School of Nursing, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, Netherlands.
Laura HochstenbachCenter of Expertise for Innovative Care and Technology (EIZT), School of Nursing, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, Netherlands.
Esther BloemenCenter of Expertise for Innovative Care and Technology (EIZT), School of Nursing, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, Netherlands.
Andre DekkerDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Rianne R R FijtenDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

machine learning (ML)personalized medicineprediction modelingPROMs = patient-reported outcome measuresprostate cancershared decision makingurinary in continence

Identifiers

PMID37124522
PMCPMC10130634

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.