ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Using interpretable machine learning model to predict lymph node metastasis in patients with localized prostate cancer.
Article 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to develop and externally validate machine learning (ML) models for predicting lymph node metastasis (LNM) in patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa) using routinely available preoperative variables. Methods: Patients with localized PCa who underwent radical prostatectomy with extended pelvic lymph node dissection were retrospectively recruited from two institutions. The primary cohort comprised patients from the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, while patients from the Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University were included as an external validation cohort. The primary cohort was randomly allocated into training (70%) and internal validation (30%) cohorts. Five ML algorithms were used to develop prediction models. Model performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and pairwise differences in AUC were assessed using DeLong's test. The optimal model was compared with the established Briganti and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) nomograms. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) were utilized to enhance model interpretability and quantify the relative contribution of individual features. Results: A total of 632 patients were included in the primary cohort, and 395 patients were included in the external validation cohort. In the internal validation cohort, the LightGBM model significantly outperformed the other candidate ML algorithms (DeLong test, p < 0.05) and achieved an AUC of 0.8613 (95% CI: 0.7976-0.9251). In the external validation cohort, LightGBM maintained the highest AUC, reaching 0.8148 (95% CI: 0.7477-0.8819). Furthermore, the LightGBM model showed predictive performance comparable to that of the established Briganti and MSKCC nomograms. SHAP analysis demonstrated that total prostate-specific antigen, body mass index, biopsy gleason grade group, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, systematic prostate biopsy positive rate, neutrophil percentage-to-albumin ratio, clinical T stage, and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio were the key contributors to the model's predictive performance. Conclusions: The LightGBM model incorporating eight key variables achieved competitive performance and showed predictive ability comparable to that of established Briganti and MSKCC nomograms. This model may serve as a useful preoperative decision-support tool, although prospective validation in larger and more diverse populations is still required before routine clinical implementation.
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.