SynthesisProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2023
The predictive value of machine learning and nomograms for lymph node metastasis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical impact of MRI-based risk calculators for prostate cancer diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Pooled it
- The diagnostic value of radiomics-based machine learning for lymph node metastasis in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Preoperative prediction of pathological pelvic lymph node metastasis in prostate cancer using an elastic net model integrating clinicopathologic andScientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of MRI radiomics in predicting lymph node metastasis in prostate cancer: A systematic review.European journal of radiology open · 2025Review
- Redefining Prostate Cancer Precision: Radiogenomics, Theragnostics, and AI-Driven Biomarkers.Cancers · 2025Review
- Development and evaluation of a lymph node invasion risk prediction model in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2025Article
- Predictive modeling for metastasis in oncology: current methods and future directions.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Quality of information and appropriateness of Open AI outputs for prostate cancer.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025Article
- Analysis of biopsy pathology and risk factors of lymph node metastasis in prostate cancer.International urology and nephrology · 2024Article
- Index tumor location affected early biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in patients with negative surgical margin: a retrospective study.BMC urology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn clinical practice, there are currently a variety of nomograms for predicting lymph node metastasis (LNM) of prostate cancer. At the same time, some scholars have introduced machine learning (ML) into the prediction of LNM of prostate cancer. However, the predictive value of nomograms and ML remains controversial. Based on this situation, this systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to explore the predictive value of various nomograms currently recommended and newly-developed ML models for LNM in prostate cancer patients. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched up to November 1, 2022. The risk of bias in the included studies was evaluated using the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). The concordance index (C-index), sensitivity, and specificity were adopted to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the models.
resultsThirty-one studies (18,803 patients) were included. Seven kinds of nomograms currently recommended, dominated by Briganti nomogram or MSKCC nomogram, were covered in the included studies. For newly-developed ML models, the C-index for LNM prediction in the training set and validation set was 0.846 [95%CI (0.818, 0.873)] and 0.862 [95%CI (0.819-0.905)] respectively. Most ML models in the training set were based on Logistic Regression (LR), which had a sensitivity of 0.78 [95%CI (0.70, 0.85)] and a specificity of 0.85 [95%CI (0.77, 0.90)] in the training set, and a sensitivity of 0.81 [95%CI (0.67, 0.89)] and a specificity of 0.82 [95%CI (0.75, 0.88)] in the validation set. For the recommended nomograms, the C-index in the validation set was 0.745 [95%CI (0.701, 0.790)] for the Briganti nomogram and 0.714 [95%CI (0.662, 0.765)] for the MSKCC nomogram.
conclusionThe predictive accuracy of ML is superior to existing clinically recommended nomograms, and appropriate updates can be conducted to existing nomograms according to special situations.
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.