ArticleDiscover oncology2025
XGBoost model for predicting erectile dysfunction risk after radical prostatectomy: development and validation using machine learning.
Article in Discover oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Progress in the research of artificial intelligence in andrology: a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in prostate cancer: navigating the new frontier of precision uro-oncology.American journal of clinical and experimental urology · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence-driven prediction and interpretation of central line-associated bloodstream infections in ICU: insights from the MIMIC-IV database.Frontiers in public health · 2025Observational
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
Abstract
backgroundErectile dysfunction (ED) is a frequent complication following radical prostatectomy, significantly affecting patients' quality of life. Traditional predictive methods often struggle to capture complex nonlinear risk factors. This study aims to develop a machine learning-based model to improve ED risk stratification and guide personalized management.
methodsA total of 1,147 prostate cancer patients were analyzed, among whom 285 (24.85%) developed postoperative ED. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified age, smoking history, Gleason score, prostate volume, T-stage, surgical approach, operative time, intraoperative bleeding, and PCT levels as independent risk factors (P < 0.05). Machine learning models, including XGBoost, Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, and k-Nearest Neighbors, were trained for ED risk prediction. Key predictors included advanced age, smoking history, Gleason score ≥ 8, prostate volume ≥ 40 ml, T-stage, laparoscopic-assisted surgery, and prolonged operative duration.
resultsXGBoost exhibited the highest predictive accuracy (AUC: 0.980 in training; 0.960 in validation), outperforming other models. Calibration curves confirmed strong concordance between predicted and actual probabilities, while decision curve analysis demonstrated superior clinical utility, with XGBoost providing the greatest net benefit. Ten-fold cross-validation indicated stable performance (validation AUC: 0.9127 ± 0.0770; test AUC: 0.9592; accuracy: 0.9111), and external validation confirmed model generalizability (AUC: 0.84). SHAP analysis highlighted key risk contributors, enabling individualized risk assessment and targeted clinical interventions.
conclusionThe XGBoost model exhibited superior predictive performance and clinical applicability in assessing ED risk after radical prostatectomy, offering a robust tool for personalized postoperative management.
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.