ArticleScientific reports2025
Integrating radiological and clinical data for clinically significant prostate cancer detection with machine learning techniques.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Imaging for Predicting Preoperative Extraprostatic Extension in Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic performance of AI-powered prostate MRI against biopsy ground truth: quasi-continuous risk scoring versus fixed PI-RADS thresholds.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026Article
- RETRACTED: Polygenic risk score and prostate specific antigen predict death from prostate cancer in men with intermediate aggressive cancer.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Redefining Prostate Cancer Precision: Radiogenomics, Theragnostics, and AI-Driven Biomarkers.Cancers · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence for the Diagnosis and Management of Cancers: Potentials and Challenges.MedComm · 2025Review
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In prostate cancer (PCa), risk calculators have been proposed, relying on clinical parameters and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) enable early prediction of clinically significant cancer (CsPCa). The prostate imaging-reporting and data system (PI-RADS) is combined with clinical variables predominantly based on logistic regression models. This study explores modeling using regularization techniques such as ridge regression, LASSO, elastic net, classification tree, tree ensemble models like random forest or XGBoost, and neural networks to predict CsPCa in a dataset of 4799 patients in Catalonia (Spain). An 80-20% split was employed for training and validation. We used predictor variables such as age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume, PSA density (PSAD), digital rectal exam (DRE) findings, family history of PCa, a previous negative biopsy, and PI-RADS categories. When considering a sensitivity of 0.9, in the validation set, the XGBoost model outperforms others with a specificity of 0.640, followed closely by random forest (0.638), neural network (0.634), and logistic regression (0.620). In terms of clinical utility, for a 10% missclassification of CsPCa, XGBoost can avoid 41.77% of unnecessary biopsies, followed closely by random forest (41.67%) and neural networks (41.46%), while logistic regression has a lower rate of 40.62%. Using SHAP values for model explainability, PI-RADS emerges as the most influential risk factor, particularly for individuals with PI-RADS 4 and 5. Additionally, a positive digital rectal examination (DRE) or family history of prostate cancer proves highly influential for certain individuals, while a previous negative biopsy serves as a protective factor for others.
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.