ArticleRadiological physics and technology2025
Decision support using machine learning for predicting adequate bladder filling in prostate radiotherapy: a feasibility study.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to develop a model for predicting the bladder volume ratio between daily CBCT and CT to determine adequate bladder filling in patients undergoing treatment for prostate cancer with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). The model was trained using 465 datasets obtained from 34 prostate cancer patients. A total of 16 features were collected as input data, which included basic patient information, patient health status, blood examination laboratory results, and specific radiation therapy information. The ratio of the bladder volume between daily CBCT (dCBCT) and planning CT (pCT) was used as the model response. The model was trained using a bootstrap aggregation (bagging) algorithm with two machine learning (ML) approaches: classification and regression. The model accuracy was validated using other 93 datasets. For the regression approach, the accuracy of the model was evaluated based on the root mean square error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE). By contrast, the model performance of the classification approach was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy scores. The ML model showed promising results in the prediction of the bladder volume ratio between dCBCT and pCT, with an RMSE of 0.244 and MAE of 0.172 for the regression approach, sensitivity of 95.24%, specificity of 92.16%, and accuracy of 93.55% for the classification approach. The prediction model could potentially help the radiological technologist determine whether the bladder is full before treatment, thereby reducing the requirement for re-scan CBCT. HIGHLIGHTS: The bagging model demonstrates strong performance in predicting optimal bladder filling. The model achieves promising results with 95.24% sensitivity and 92.16% specificity. It supports therapists in assessing bladder fullness prior to treatment. It helps reduce the risk of requiring repeat CBCT scans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40457029What 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.