SynthesisScientific reports2025
Diagnostic systematic review and meta-analysis of machine learning in predicting biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Machine learning based prediction of recurrence in oral tongue cancer: a systematic review with quantitative synthesis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Artificial Intelligence in Predicting Prostate Cancer Biochemical Recurrence: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic reviews of medical machine learning: limitations of pooling AUCs.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most prevalent malignant tumor in males, and many patients remain at risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) following initial treatment. Accurate prediction of BCR is vital for effective clinical management and treatment planning. This study evaluates the effectiveness of machine learning (ML) models in predicting BCR among prostate cancer patients, comparing their performance to traditional prognostic methods. We systematically searched four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane) for studies employing ML techniques to predict prostate cancer BCR. Data extraction included model type, sample size, and the area under the curve (AUC). A meta-analysis was conducted using AUC as the primary performance metric to assess predictive accuracy and heterogeneity across models. Sixteen studies comprising a total of 17,316 prostate cancer patients were included. The pooled AUC for ML models was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.81-0.84). Deep learning and hybrid models outperformed traditional models (AUC = 0.83). Models using imaging data showed improved performance (AUC = 0.82). ML models were most effective in predicting 1-year BCR (AUC = 0.86), with performance slightly decreasing for longer time intervals. ML models outperform traditional methods in predicting BCR, especially in the short term. Incorporating multimodal data, such as imaging, enhances predictive accuracy. Future studies should optimize and validate these models through large-scale clinical trials.
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.