ArticleBMC urology2026
Comparatıve evaluatıon of the brıgantı nomogram, partın nomogram, mskcc nomogram and a machıne learnıng-based model ın predıctıng lymph node ınvasıon before radıcal prostatectomy.
Article in BMC urology, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAccurate preoperative prediction of lymph node invasion (LNI) is crucial for deciding on extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) in radical prostatectomy. Traditional nomograms such as Briganti, Partin, and MSKCC are widely used, but machine learning (ML)–based models may improve predictive accuracy. MATERIALS AND
methodsData from 471 prostate cancer patients were analyzed, including demographic, clinical, and histopathological variables and scores from Briganti, Partin, and MSKCC nomograms. Eleven ML algorithms were evaluated, with performance assessed by AUC-ROC, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and F1-score. Class imbalance was addressed with resampling techniques, and feature importance analyses were performed.
resultsLNI was present in 97 patients (20.6%). Significant predictors included MSKCC and Partin scores, PSA, ISUP grade, PIRADS score, lymphovascular invasion, and age. Neural Network (AUC: 0.81) and Random Forest (AUC: 0.77) showed similar performance to the nomograms (MSKCC: 0.79; Briganti: 0.77; Partin: 0.78) when considering the AUC values and their 95% confidence intervals.Decision tree analysis highlighted negative core count, ISUP grade, prostate density, PSA, BMI, and age as key variables. Combining nomogram scores with ML models resulted in numerically slightly higher AUC values; however, these differences remained within a similar performance range and did not indicate a clinically meaningful improvement.
conclusionAlthough the AUC values of the ML models appear numerically comparable to, or slightly higher than, those of traditional nomograms, the inherent limitations of the study preclude demonstrating a clinically superior or reliably advantageous performance; therefore, multicenter prospective validation studies are warranted.
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.