Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39905119›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Integrating radiological and clinical data for clinically significant prostate cancer detection with machine learning techniques.

Luis Mariano Esteban, Ángel Borque-Fernando, Maria Etelvina Escorihuela, Javier Esteban-Escaño, Jose María Abascal, Pol Servian, Juan Morote

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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

7 authors.

Luis Mariano EstebanDepartment of Applied Mathematics, Escuela Universitaria Politécnica de La Almunia, Universidad de Zaragoza, C/ Mayor 5, 50100, La Almunia de Doña Godina, Spain. lmeste@unizar.es.
Ángel Borque-FernandoDepartment of Urology, Miguel Servet University Hospital, 50009, Zaragoza, Spain.
Maria Etelvina EscorihuelaDepartment of Applied Mathematics, Escuela Universitaria Politécnica de La Almunia, Universidad de Zaragoza, C/ Mayor 5, 50100, La Almunia de Doña Godina, Spain.
Javier Esteban-EscañoDepartment of Electronic Engineering and Communications, Escuela Universitaria Politécnica de La Almunia, Universidad de Zaragoza, 50100, La Almunia de Doña Godina, Spain.
Jose María AbascalDepartment of Urology, Department of Surgery, Parc de Salut Mar, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 08003, Barcelona, Spain.
Pol ServianDepartment of Urology, Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, 08916, Badalona, Spain.
Juan MoroteDepartment of Urology, Vall d'Hebron Hospital, 08035, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

Gobierno de Aragón T69_23RInstituto de Salud Carlos III PI20/01666Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación PID2020-116873GB-I00
6 · The paper itself

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

Machine LearningProstatic NeoplasmsAgedDigital Rectal ExaminationHumansLogistic ModelsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNeural Networks, ComputerProstateProstate-Specific AntigenProstate-Specific AntigenClinically significant prostate cancerClinical utilityMachine learningSHAP values

Identifiers

PMID39905119
PMCPMC11794621

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.