Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37838656›Full record

ArticleBMC urology2023

Machine learning-based prediction model and visual interpretation for prostate cancer.

Gang Chen, Xuchao Dai, Mengqi Zhang, Zhujun Tian, Xueke Jin, Kun Mei, Hong Huang, Zhigang Wu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Assessing the Adequacy of a Prediction Model.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine
    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.

Gang ChenSchool of Public Health and Management, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325035, China.
Xuchao DaiSchool of Public Health and Management, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325035, China.
Mengqi ZhangSchool of Public Health and Management, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325035, China.
Zhujun TianSchool of Public Health and Management, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325035, China.
Xueke JinSchool of Public Health and Management, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325035, China.
Kun MeiSchool of Environmental Science and Engineering, Suzhou University of Science and Technology, Suzhou, 215009, China.
Hong HuangCenter for Health Assessment, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325035, China. Huanghongpanda@163.com.
Zhigang WuDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 325035, China. andrologywzg@wmu.edu.cn.

Funding

Department of Education of Zhejiang Province Y202146906Wenzhou Medical University KJHX2014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost prostate cancers(PCa) rely on serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for biopsy confirmation, but the accuracy needs to be further improved. We need to continue to develop PCa prediction model with high clinical application value.

methodsBenign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and prostate cancer data were obtained from the Chinese National Clinical Medical Science Data Center for retrospective analysis. The model was constructed using the XGBoost algorithm, and patients' age, body mass index (BMI), PSA-related parameters and serum biochemical parameters were used as model variables. Using decision analysis curve (DCA) to evaluate the clinical utility of the models. The shapley additive explanation (SHAP) framework was used to analyze the importance ranking and risk threshold of the variables.

resultsA total of 1915 patients were included in this study, including 823 (43.0%) were BPH patients and 1092 (57.0%) were PCa patients. The XGBoost model provided better performance (AUC 0.82) compared with f/tPSA (AUC 0.75),tPSA (AUC 0.68) and fPSA (AUC 0.61), respectively. Based on SHAP values, f/tPSA was the most important variable, and the top five most important biochemical parameter variables were inorganic phosphorus (P), potassium (K), creatine kinase MB isoenzyme (CKMB), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and creatinine (Cre). PCa risk thresholds for these risk markers were f/tPSA (0.13), P (1.29 mmol/L), K (4.29 mmol/L), CKMB ( 11.6U/L), LDL-C (3.05mmol/L) and Cre (74.5-99.1umol/L).

conclusionThe present model has advantages of wide-spread availability and high net benefit, especially for underdeveloped countries and regions. Furthermore, these risk thresholds can assist in the diagnosis and screening of prostate cancer in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Prostatic HyperplasiaProstatic NeoplasmsCholesterol, LDLHumansMaleProstate-Specific AntigenRetrospective StudiesCholesterol, LDLProstate-Specific AntigenBiochemical parametersMachine learningProstate cancerRisk thresholdShapley values

Identifiers

PMID37838656
PMCPMC10576344

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.