Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39223585›Full record

ArticleCancer science2024

Prostate cancer treatment recommendation study based on machine learning and SHAP interpreter.

Shengsheng Tang, Hongzheng Zhang, Junhao Liang, Shishi Tang, Lin Li, Yuxuan Li, Yuan Xu, Daohu Wang, Yi Zhou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

9 authors.

Shengsheng TangZhongshan School of Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Hongzheng ZhangZhongshan School of Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Junhao LiangZhongshan School of Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Shishi TangZhongshan School of Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Lin LiZhongshan School of Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yuxuan LiZhongshan School of Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yuan XuMedical Big-Data Center, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Daohu WangDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yi ZhouZhongshan School of Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4774-2234

Funding

the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Sun Yat-sen University 24xkjc025the Guangdong Natural Science Foundation 2024A1515011989the Guangzhou Science and Technology Plan Project 202206010028the Key Research and Development Program of China 2022YFC3601600the Key Research and Development Programs of Jiangxi Provincial Department of Science and Technology 20202BBGL73074
6 · The paper itself

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

Machine LearningProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsSEER ProgramAgedAlgorithmsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingProstate-Specific AntigenROC CurveSurvival AnalysisSurvival RateProstate-Specific Antigenmachine learningprostate cancerSEER databaseSHAP interpretersurvival analysis

Identifiers

PMID39223585
PMCPMC11531952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.