ArticleCancer science2024
Prostate cancer treatment recommendation study based on machine learning and SHAP interpreter.
Article in Cancer science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- [Artificial intelligence as decision support tool in urological oncology: current evidence and challenges].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Development and validation of a machine learning model for predicting objective response to PD-1 inhibitors in lung cancer patients.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Article
- Advancing Genitourinary Cancer Surgery: The Role of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Single-cell and machine learning reveal ROS-associated heterogeneity in hepatocellular carcinoma for precision medicine.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Explainable and visualizable machine learning model development and validation for 5-year postoperative survival prediction in prostate cancer patients aged ≥ 65 years.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Network toxicology & molecular docking: endocrine-disrupting chemicals induce prostate cancer - a system study.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2026Article
- Machine learning approaches for predicting progression in hormone-sensitive prostate cancer patients.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Machine Learning-Based Models for the Prediction of Postoperative Recurrence Risk in MVI-Negative HCC.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- A Multimarker Model for Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment: Improving Diagnostic Accuracy Beyond PSA.The Prostate · 2025Article
- Development and validation of nomograms for predicting survival of locally advanced rectosigmoid junction cancer patients: a SEER database analysis.Translational cancer research · 2025Article
- Emerging artificial intelligence-driven precision therapies in tumor drug resistance: recent advances, opportunities, and challenges.Molecular cancer · 2025Review
- Utilization of artificial intelligence in prostate cancer detection: a comprehensive review of innovations in screening and diagnosis.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Prostate cancer treatment recommendation study based on machine learning and SHAP interpreter.Cancer science · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study utilized data from 140,294 prostate cancer cases from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Here, 10 different machine learning algorithms were applied to develop treatment options for predicting patients with prostate cancer, differentiating between surgical and non-surgical treatments. The performances of the algorithms were measured using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value. The Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) method was employed to investigate the key factors influencing the prediction process. Survival analysis methods were used to compare the survival rates of different treatment options. The CatBoost model yielded the best results (AUC = 0.939, sensitivity = 0.877, accuracy = 0.877). SHAP interpreters revealed that the T stage, cancer stage, age, cores positive percentage, prostate-specific antigen, and Gleason score were the most critical factors in predicting treatment options. The study found that surgery significantly improved survival rates, with patients undergoing surgery experiencing a 20.36% increase in 10-year survival rates compared with those receiving non-surgical treatments. Among surgical options, radical prostatectomy had the highest 10-year survival rate at 89.2%. This study successfully developed a predictive model to guide treatment decisions for prostate cancer. Moreover, the model enhanced the transparency of the decision-making process, providing clinicians with a reference for formulating personalized treatment plans.
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.