ArticleThe Canadian journal of urology2025
Machine learning-based comparison of transperineal vs. transrectal biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis: evaluating procedural effectiveness.
Article in The Canadian journal of urology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransrectal (TR) and transperineal (TP) biopsies are commonly used methods for diagnosing prostate cancer. However, their comparative effectiveness in conjunction with machine learning (ML) techniques remains underexplored. This study aimed to evaluate the predictive accuracy of ML algorithms in detecting prostate cancer using data derived from TR and TP biopsies.
methodsThe clinical records of patients who underwent prostate biopsy at King Saud University Medical City and King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centerin Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, between 2018 and 2025 were analyzed. Data were used to train and test ML models, including eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Decision Tree, Random Forest, and Extra Trees.
resultsThe two datasets are comparable. The models demonstrated exceptional performance, achieving accuracies of up to 96.49% and 95.56% on TP and TR biopsy datasets, respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) values were also high, reaching 0.9988 for TP and 0.9903 for TR biopsy predictions.
conclusionThese findings highlight the potential of ML to enhance the diagnostic accuracy of prostate cancer detection irrespective of the biopsy method. However, TP biopsy data showed marginally higher accuracy, possibly because of the lower risk of contamination. While ML holds great promise for transforming prostate cancer care, further research is needed to address limitations. Collaboration between clinicians, data scientists, and researchers is crucial to ensure the clinical relevance and interpretability of ML models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40567084What 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.