Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37260984›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023

Comparison of machine learning models based on multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound videos for the prediction of prostate cancer.

Xiaoyang Qi, Kai Wang, Bojian Feng, Xingbo Sun, Jie Yang, Zhengbiao Hu, Maoliang Zhang, Cheng Lv, Liyuan Jin, Lingyan Zhou and 2 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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

12 authors.

Xiaoyang QiDepartment of Ultrasound, The Affiliated Dongyang Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Dongyang, Zhejiang, China.
Kai WangDepartment of Ultrasound, The Affiliated Dongyang Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Dongyang, Zhejiang, China.
Bojian FengDepartment of Ultrasound, The Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Xingbo SunDepartment of Ultrasound, The Affiliated Dongyang Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Dongyang, Zhejiang, China.
Jie YangDepartment of Ultrasound, The Affiliated Dongyang Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Dongyang, Zhejiang, China.
Zhengbiao HuDepartment of Ultrasound, The Affiliated Dongyang Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Dongyang, Zhejiang, China.
Maoliang ZhangDepartment of Ultrasound, The Affiliated Dongyang Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Dongyang, Zhejiang, China.
Cheng LvDepartment of Ultrasound, The Affiliated Dongyang Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Dongyang, Zhejiang, China.
Liyuan JinDepartment of Ultrasound, The Affiliated Dongyang Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Dongyang, Zhejiang, China.
Lingyan ZhouDepartment of Ultrasound, The Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Zhengping WangDepartment of Ultrasound, The Affiliated Dongyang Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Dongyang, Zhejiang, China.
Jincao YaoDepartment of Ultrasound, The Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To establish machine learning (ML) prediction models for prostate cancer (PCa) using transrectal ultrasound videos and multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and compare their diagnostic performance. Materials and methods: We systematically collated the data of 383 patients, including 187 with PCa and 196 with benign lesions. Of them, 307 patients (150 with PCa and 157 with benign lesions) were randomly selected to train and validate the ML models, 76 patients were used as test set. B-Ultrasound videos (BUS), mpMRI T2 sequence (T2), and ADC sequence (ADC) were obtained from all patients. We extracted 851 features of each patient in the BUS, T2, and ADC groups and used a t-test, the Mann-Whitney U test, and LASSO regression to screen the features. Support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), adaptive boosting (ADB), and gradient boosting machine (GBM) models were used to establish radiomics models. In addition, we fused the features screened Results: In the test cohort, the AUC of each model in the ADC group was higher than that of in the.BUS and T2 groups. Among the models, the RF model had the best diagnostic performance, with an AUC of 0.85, sensitivity of 0.78 (0.61-0.89), specificity of 0.84 (0.69-0.94), and accuracy of 0.83 (0.66-0.93). The SVM model in both the BUS and T2 groups performed best. Based on the features screened in the BUS, T2, and ADC groups fused to construct the models, the SVM model was found to perform best, with an AUC of 0.87, sensitivity of 0.73 (0.56-0.86), specificity of 0.79 (0.63-0.90), and accuracy of 0.77 (0.59-0.89). The difference in the results was statistically significant ( Conclusion: The ML prediction models had a good diagnostic ability for PCa. Among them, the SVM model in the fusion group showed the best performance in diagnosing PCa. These prediction models can help radiologists make better diagnoses.

Indexed as

machine learningmagnetic resonance imagingprostate cancerradiomicssupport vector machinesultrasound

Identifiers

PMID37260984
PMCPMC10227569

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.