Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40567084›Full record

ArticleThe Canadian journal of urology2025

Machine learning-based comparison of transperineal vs. transrectal biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis: evaluating procedural effectiveness.

Mostafa Ahmed Arafa, Karim Hamda Farhat, Nesma Lotfy, Farrukh Kamel Khan, Alaa Mokhtar, Abdulaziz Mohammed Althunayan, Waleed Al-Taweel, Sultan Saud Al-Khateeb, Sami Azhari, Danny Munther Rabah

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Mostafa Ahmed ArafaThe Cancer Research Chair, Surgery Department, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11472, Saudi Arabia.
Karim Hamda FarhatThe Cancer Research Chair, Surgery Department, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11472, Saudi Arabia.
Nesma LotfyDepartment of Biostatistics, High Institute of Public Health, Alexandria University, Alexandria, 21521, Egypt.
Farrukh Kamel KhanThe Cancer Research Chair, Surgery Department, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11472, Saudi Arabia.
Alaa MokhtarDepartment of Urology, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, 11211, Saudi Arabia.
Abdulaziz Mohammed AlthunayanThe Cancer Research Chair, Surgery Department, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11472, Saudi Arabia.
Waleed Al-TaweelDepartment of Urology, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, 11211, Saudi Arabia.
Sultan Saud Al-KhateebDepartment of Urology, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, 11211, Saudi Arabia.
Sami AzhariThe Cancer Research Chair, Surgery Department, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11472, Saudi Arabia.
Danny Munther RabahThe Cancer Research Chair, Surgery Department, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11472, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Machine LearningProstateProstatic NeoplasmsAgedBiopsyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPerineumPredictive Value of TestsRectumRetrospective Studiesmachine learningprediction effectivenessprostate cancertransperineal biopsytransrectal biopsy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.