ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2025
Postoperative complication severity prediction in penile prosthesis implantation: a machine learning-based predictive modeling study.
Article in International journal of impotence research, 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
Prediction of postoperative complications is crucial in surgical care, particularly for penile prosthesis implantation. We retrospectively evaluated demographic, clinical, laboratory, and surgical data from patients who underwent penile prosthesis implantation between 2015 and 2023. Six machine learning algorithms-Gradient Boosting (GB), AdaBoost, Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), XGBoost (XGB), and Naive Bayes (NB)-were trained to predict the occurrence and severity of postoperative complications. Model performance was assessed using accuracy, F1 score, sensitivity, specificity, Youden Index, and AUC value, and statistical comparisons identified the most effective approach. The GB model achieved the highest F1 score (0.86 ± 0.09; 95% CI, 0.84-0.87), significantly outperforming other models. Sensitivity was greatest for GB and XGB (0.78 ± 0.13; 95% CI, 0.75-0.80), with GB superior to AdaBoost and SVM (p < 0.001). RF demonstrated the highest specificity (1.00 ± 0.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.00), exceeding AdaBoost, SVM, and NB (p < 0.001). GB best predicted mild complications (0.74 ± 0.14; 95% CI, 0.72-0.77), while NB excelled for severe complications (0.94 ± 0.17; 95% CI, 0.90-0.98). Overall accuracy was 0.90 ± 0.04 (95% CI, 0.89-0.90) for both GB and RF. Feature analysis highlighted HbA1c, total testosterone, and urea as key predictors. Implementing GB-based machine learning may enhance surgical decision-making in this setting.
Identifiers
40665042What 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.