ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Evaluation of a PSA and transrectal prostate ultrasound video-based machine learning model as a tool for prostate cancer diagnosis.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To develop a machine learning-based model incorporating prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and prostate ultrasound video clips for diagnosing prostate cancer. Methods: The study enrolled 928 participants, of whom 429 had prostate cancer and 499 other non-prostate cancers. Univariate and multivariate analyses of serological indices were conducted to detect significant variables. From this cohort, 742 patients were randomly chosen for model validation, while the other 186 were employed to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the model. Seven features were extracted from ultrasound video clips and combined with PSA and other clinical indicators. Predictive models were established using six machine learning algorithms and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine the optimal model. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) was utilized to visualize feature importance in the best-performing model. Results: All six of the evaluated machine learning models performed favorably, with area under the ROC curve (AUC) values in the test set ranging from 0.800 to 0.881. Of these models, the XGBoost model achieved the most promising performance, significantly surpassing that of the other models (P < 0.05). SHAP visualization revealed that PSA, prostatic volume(PV), age, wavelet.LHL.firstorder. Median, wavelet.HLH.glszm.ZoneEntropy, and original.shape.MinorAxisLength were the most influential features in the XGBoost model. Conclusion: The developed machine learning models demonstrated significant potential for prostate cancer diagnosis. Among them, the XGBoost model outperformed the others, highlighting its superior predictive capability.
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.