ArticleScientific reports2024
Development and validation of a prediction model for ED using machine learning: according to NHANES 2001-2004.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in the Assessment of Males with Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome: An Up-to-Date UPOINTS-Based Narrative Mapping Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Utilization of artificial intelligence in Men's Health: Opportunities for innovation and quality improvement.International journal of impotence research · 2026Review
- Utilization and prospects of artificial intelligence in the diagnosis, prediction, and treatment of erectile dysfunction.Sexual medicine · 2026Review
- Cost Considerations in Penile Implant Surgery from a Global Perspective.Current urology reports · 2026Review
- The Evolving Role of Artificial Intelligence in Andrological Surgery: Current Landscape and Future Direction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Personalized fitness recommendations using machine learning for optimized national health strategy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Erectile Dysfunction (ED) is a form of sexual dysfunction in males that imposes significant health and financial burdens globally. Despite its high prevalence, diagnosing ED remains challenging due to the limitations of current diagnostic methods and patients' reluctance to seek medical help. Currently, some studies have used machine learning techniques for developing ED prediction models, but the performance and interpretability of existing models need to be further improved. This study utilized data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the years 2001 to 2004, adhering to the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement. After excluding male respondents who did not meet the study criteria, a total of 3,869 participants were included. Gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT) algorithms (XGBoost, CatBoost, LightGBM) were used to develop the ED prediction model. Data preprocessing, feature selection, model evaluation, and interpretability analysis were performed to ensure the reliability and effectiveness of the model. The model evaluation results revealed that the AUC values are XGBoost: 0.887 ± 0.016; LightGBM: 0.879 ± 0.016; CatBoost: 0.871 ± 0.019. The F1-Scores are XGBoost: 0.695 ± 0.023; LightGBM: 0.681 ± 0.025; CatBoost: 0.681 ± 0.025. The Recall values are XGBoost: 0.789 ± 0.026; LightGBM: 0.739 ± 0.030; CatBoost: 0.711 ± 0.030. These results confirmed that the XGBoost model is the best-performing ED prediction model in this study. Interpretability analysis results of the XGBoost model showed that age, obesity, cardiovascular risk factors, prostate-related diseases, and socioeconomic status are key features for predicting ED, playing a significant role in the ED mechanism. Therefore, we believe the ED prediction model trained in this study has strong predictive performance and high interpretability. This model can help to expand the diagnostic options for ED, improve the diagnosis rate of ED, and assist doctors in early intervention for patients with ED, ultimately improving patient prognosis.
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.