ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Predictive model for PSA persistence after radical prostatectomy using machine learning algorithms.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Predicting the diabetic foot in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus based on machine learning.Biomedical engineering online · 2026Article
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
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of a machine learning model for predicting prostate-specific antigen (PSA) persistence after radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods: Data from 470 patients who underwent RP at the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University from January 2018 to June 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Ten risk factors, including age, body mass index (BMI), preoperative PSA, biopsy Gleason score, total prostate specific antigen density (PSAD), clinical tumor stage, clinical lymph node status, seminal vesicle invasion, capsular invasion and positive surgical margin, were included in the analysis. The data were randomly divided into a training set and a test set at a ratio of 7:3, and seven different machine learning algorithms were compared. The confusion matrix, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and area under the ROC curve (AUC) were used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the model, and the random forest algorithm found to be the optimal prediction model. Results: In the entire cohort, 142 (30.21%) patients developed PSA persistence. Based on all included risk factors, the random forest model had the best effect among the seven models, with an AUC of 0.8607 in the training set and 0.8011 in the test set. The feature importance results showed that capsular invasion, positive surgical margin, preoperative PSA and biopsy Gleason score were the four most important risk factors for PSA persistence after RP. Conclusion: The Random Forest algorithm performed excellently in this study and can be used to construct a predictive model for PSA persistence. By incorporating clinical data from the Asian region and exploring the risk factors for PSA persistence, this study contributes to the existing research and aids clinicians in assessing the risk of PSA persistence occurrence, enabling timely treatment planning and 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.