SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Prediction models in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Prostate cancer is the sixth most common cause of cancer-related death in males globally and is often identified as a secondary malignancy. Early detection and appropriate management increase the patient's life expectancy. In predicting prostate cancer outcomes, artificial intelligence models are currently employed increasingly, although they are not widely applicable due to an unclear understanding of their performances. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the pooled predictive performances of these models using area under the curve (AUC) metrics across different prediction endpoints: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity or quality of life (TQL), recurrence distance metastasis (RDM), and treatment response (TR). Methods: PubMed and Scopus were systematically searched for studies that reported prediction models for prostate cancer outcomes. In accordance with PRISMA criteria, we carried out a systematic review of prediction models for prostate cancer, with a registered protocol in PROSPERO (CRD42025611480). Using the Prediction Model Quality Score (PMQS), qualified studies were assessed for methodological quality. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis, pooling AUCs for each prediction endpoint; heterogeneity was assessed using I², τ², and Q statistics. Funnel plots, Egger's regression test, and the trim-and-fill method were used to assess publication bias. Results: A total of 144 studies were selected based on the eligibility criteria for systematic review, but only 85 were included in the meta-analysis. The overall pooled AUC in all prediction endpoints were 0.808, 0.792, 0.845, 0.835, and 0.805 for OS, PFS, RDM, TR, and TQL, respectively, indicating good predictive performance. Funnel plots showed no significant asymmetry. Conclusion: The models evaluated in this review demonstrated over 75% accuracy in predicting prostate cancer with varied performance across prediction endpoints. Standardized model reporting and robust external validation are needed to improve reproducibility and clinical translation. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42025611480, identifier CRD42025611480.
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.