ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2026
Interpretable machine learning identifies health system levers for survival outcomes of patients with prostate cancer.
Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdvances in the care of patients with prostate cancer across the disease spectrum have resulted in substantial survival gains over recent decades. However, global disparities in prostate cancer survival, stage at diagnosis, and access to timely diagnosis and treatment remain among the greatest across all malignancies. We aimed to quantify country-level health system correlates of the prostate cancer mortality-to-incidence ratio (MIR).
methodsWe applied interpretable machine learning using CatBoost with SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) to all 185 countries with prostate cancer MIR estimates in GLOBOCAN 2022. National age-standardized MIR estimates were linked to 11 health system indicators from the World Health Organization Global Health Observatory, World Bank World Development Indicators, United Nations agencies, and the Directory of Radiotherapy Centres. Model performance was evaluated using repeated leave-one-country-out cross-validation with bootstrap-based uncertainty estimation. CatBoost handled missing predictor values natively, allowing inclusion of all countries without imputation.
resultsThe model demonstrated strong predictive performance for prostate cancer MIR (R² = 0.80, RMSE = 0.078, MAE = 0.060, Pearson correlation = 0.89). The health system features most strongly associated with lower MIR were gross domestic product per capita, the universal health coverage (UHC) service coverage index, and radiotherapy infrastructure. Country-level SHAP decompositions demonstrated heterogeneous feature contributions across settings, identifying context-specific priorities. Greater radiotherapy capacity and more comprehensive UHC were consistently associated with lower MIR, whereas higher aggregate health expenditure alone showed weaker associations with improved outcomes.
conclusionsInterpretable machine learning identified radiotherapy infrastructure, universal health coverage, and national wealth as the health system features most consistently associated with lower prostate cancer mortality-to-incidence ratios across countries. These findings suggest that targeted investment in treatment capacity and service coverage may have greater relevance to prostate cancer outcomes than increases in aggregate health spending alone. Although ecological and hypothesis-generating, this framework may inform future health systems research, prospective evaluation, and global prostate cancer control.
Identifiers
42827104What 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.