ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
Explainable and visualizable machine learning model development and validation for 5-year postoperative survival prediction in prostate cancer patients aged ≥ 65 years.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMachine Learning (ML) models have achieved outstanding performance in predicting post-surgical survival. However, the "black-box" nature of ML models restricts their clinical application. This study aims to develop and validate a clinically feasible, machine learning-based online prediction system for predicting the 5-year survival status of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) after surgery.
methodsThis study conducted a retrospective analysis of clinical data from 300 older adults with PCa aged ≥ 65 years. LASSO regression, random forest (RF), and recursive feature elimination (RFE) were employed to screen for clinical parameters. Subsequently, the cohort was split into a training set and a test set at a 7:3 ratio, and 25 machine learning approaches were utilized for comparative assessment to determine the optimal model. Calibration curves were applied to evaluate the performance of each model, while decision curve analysis (DCA) was adopted to assess their clinical usefulness. In addition, SHAP (Shapley Additive exPlanations) values were used to interpret the model features. Finally, the Shiny framework was employed to develop an online prediction system.
resultsThe intersection of the three feature selection algorithms identified 13 clinical parameters: Age, ALB, BUN, CRE, HB, PLT, PT, PSA, GS, PNI, PSM, pT and pN. Comparing 25 machine learning algorithms, LightGBM gave the best results. Its performance metrics were: Accuracy 0.9328, Sensitivity 0.9074, Specificity 0.9538, Positive Predictive Value (PPV) 0.9418, Negative Predictive Value (NPV) 0.9118, AUC 0.9778, Recall 0.9074, F1 Score 0.9143. SHAP values revealed the contribution of each feature in the LightGBM model.
conclusionThis study successfully developed a 5-year postoperative survival prediction model for prostate cancer patients. The model demonstrated favorable predictive performance in the test set, which may provide a reference for clinical decision-making. Further multi-center external validation is required to clarify its clinical application value in the future.
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.