ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2025
Prediction of Prostate Cancer From Routine Laboratory Markers With Automated Machine Learning.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Stratification of Prostate Cancer Through Blood-Based Biochemical and Inflammatory Markers.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a prostate cancer risk prediction model for the elevated PSA population.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this study, we attempted to select the optimum cases for a prostate biopsy based on routine laboratory test results in addition to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test using H2O automated machine learning (AutoML) software, which includes many common machine learning algorithms.
methodsThe study included 737 patients (46-88 years old). Routine laboratory measurements were used to train machine learning models using H2O AutoML. We created a model that classifies prostate biopsy results as malignant or benign. The performance of the best model was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), log-loss metric, F1 score, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity, and specificity. The model's performance was evaluated through the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis feature-based interpretation method applied to comprehend the machine learning model.
resultsThe gradient boosting machine model was the most successful. The best result was obtained in the model with 11 parameters, including PSA, free PSA, free PSA to PSA, hemoglobin, neutrophils, platelets, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), glucose, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), lymphocytes, and age. The AUC of this model was 0.72, the specificity was 0.84, the PPV was 0.65, the NPV was 0.69, and the accuracy was 0.68.
conclusionOur results suggest that adding only routine laboratory parameters to the PSA test and developing machine learning algorithms can help reduce the number of unnecessary prostate biopsies without overlooking the diagnosis of PCa.
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.