Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39123458›Full record

ArticleCancers2024

Comparison between Three Radiomics Models and Clinical Nomograms for Prediction of Lymph Node Involvement in PCa Patients Combining Clinical and Radiomic Features.

Domiziana Santucci, Raffaele Ragone, Elva Vergantino, Federica Vaccarino, Francesco Esperto, Francesco Prata, Roberto Mario Scarpa, Rocco Papalia, Bruno Beomonte Zobel, Francesco Rosario Grasso and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

11 authors.

Domiziana SantucciDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, 00128 Rome, Italy.
Raffaele RagoneDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, 00128 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0009-0006-6110-6134
Elva VergantinoDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, 00128 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0009-0008-6968-0645
Federica VaccarinoDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, 00128 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0472-0526
Francesco EspertoDepartment of Urology, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, 00128 Rome, Italy.
Francesco PrataDepartment of Urology, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, 00128 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3084-6210
Roberto Mario ScarpaDepartment of Urology, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, 00128 Rome, Italy.
Rocco PapaliaDepartment of Urology, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, 00128 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9566-7243
Bruno Beomonte ZobelDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, 00128 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9227-5535
Francesco Rosario GrassoDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, 00128 Rome, Italy.
Eliodoro FaiellaDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, 00128 Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe aim to compare the performance of three different radiomics models (logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), and support vector machine (SVM)) and clinical nomograms (Briganti, MSKCC, Yale, and Roach) for predicting lymph node involvement (LNI) in prostate cancer (PCa) patients. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe retrospective study includes 95 patients who underwent mp-MRI and radical prostatectomy for PCa with pelvic lymphadenectomy. Imaging data (intensity in T2, DWI, ADC, and PIRADS), clinical data (age and pre-MRI PSA), histological data (Gleason score, TNM staging, histological type, capsule invasion, seminal vesicle invasion, and neurovascular bundle involvement), and clinical nomograms (Yale, Roach, MSKCC, and Briganti) were collected for each patient. Manual segmentation of the index lesions was performed for each patient using an open-source program (3D SLICER). Radiomic features were extracted for each segmentation using the Pyradiomics library for each sequence (T2, DWI, and ADC). The features were then selected and used to train and test three different radiomics models (LR, RF, and SVM) independently using ChatGPT software (v 4o). The coefficient value of each feature was calculated (significant value for coefficient ≥ ±0.5). The predictive performance of the radiomics models and clinical nomograms was assessed using accuracy and area under the curve (AUC) (significant value for

resultsThis study identified 343 features per patient (330 radiomics features and 13 clinical features). The most significant features were T2_nodulofirstordervariance and T2_nodulofirstorderkurtosis. The highest predictive performance was achieved by the RF model with DWI (accuracy 86%, AUC 0.89) and ADC (accuracy 89%, AUC 0.67). Clinical nomograms demonstrated satisfactory but lower predictive performance compared to the RF model in the DWI sequences.

conclusionsAmong the prediction models developed using integrated data (radiomics and semantics), RF shows slightly higher diagnostic accuracy in terms of AUC compared to clinical nomograms in PCa lymph node involvement prediction.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceChatGPTclinical nomogramlogistic regression (LR)multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI)prostate cancer (PCa)random forest (RF)support vector machine (SVM)

Identifiers

PMID39123458
PMCPMC11311324

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.