ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2021
Can machine learning-based analysis of multiparameter MRI and clinical parameters improve the performance of clinically significant prostate cancer diagnosis?
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging-based radiomics for detecting prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Integrating radiological and clinical data for clinically significant prostate cancer detection with machine learning techniques.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Risk assessment and prediction of nosocomial infections based on surveillance data using machine learning methods.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Radiomic Pipelines for Prostate Cancer in External Beam Radiation Therapy: A Review of Methods and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Prostate Cancer Diagnosis via Visual Representation of Tabular Data and Deep Transfer Learning.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Performance Evaluation of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Prostate Cancer with Supervised Machine Learning Methods.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- More than Meets the Eye: Using Textural Analysis and Artificial Intelligence as Decision Support Tools in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis-A Systematic Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Prediction of Atrial Fibrillation in Hospitalized Elderly Patients With Coronary Heart Disease and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Using Machine Learning: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Biparametric MRI-based radiomics classifiers for the detection of prostate cancer in patients with PSA serum levels of 4∼10 ng/mL.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo establish machine learning(ML) models for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) using multiparameter magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), texture analysis (TA), dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) quantitative analysis and clinical parameters and to evaluate the stability of these models in internal and temporal validation.
methodsThe dataset of 194 men was split into training (n = 135) and internal validation (n = 59) cohorts, and a temporal dataset (n = 58) was used for evaluation. The lesions with Gleason score ≥ 7 were defined as csPC. Logistic regression (LR), stepwise regression (SR), classical decision tree (cDT), conditional inference tree (CIT), random forest (RF) and support vector machine (SVM) models were established by combining mpMRI-TA, DCE-MRI and clinical parameters and validated by internal and temporal validation using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and Delong's method.
resultsEight variables were determined as important predictors for csPC, with the first three related to texture features derived from the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) mapping. RF, LR and SR models yielded larger and more stable area under the ROC curve values (AUCs) than other models. In the temporal validation, the sensitivity was lower than that of the internal validation (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and AUC (p > 0.05).
conclusionsEach machine learning model in this study has good classification ability for csPC. Compared with internal validation, the sensitivity of each machine learning model in temporal validation was reduced, but the specificity, accuracy, PPV, NPV and AUCs remained stable at a good level. The RF, LR and SR models have better classification performance in the imaging-based diagnosis of csPC, and ADC texture-related parameters are of the highest importance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.