ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2026
Diagnostic Efficiency of Age-Adjusted PSAD for Prostate Cancer and Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Construction and Nomogram Validation.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProstate-Specific Antigen (PSA) is widely used for Prostate Cancer (PCa) screening, but its low specificity often leads to false-positive results and unnecessary biopsies. To address this issue, we introduced Age-Adjusted Prostate-Specific Antigen Density (A-PSAD) as a potential biomarker to improve screening accuracy for PCa and Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer (csPCa).
methodsIn this study, 663 patients who underwent prostate biopsy between 2020 and 2024 were included. The diagnostic performance of A-PSAD, PSAD, and other biomarkers was compared. Key variables, including age, diabetes history, FPSA, prostate volume, and A-PSAD, were selected using Lasso regression to develop a nomogram prediction model (Nomo1). Additionally, the PI-RADS score was incorporated into a second model (Nomo2).
resultsA-PSAD outperformed PSAD in PCa and csPCa screening. For PCa, A-PSAD had a higher AUC (0.753 vs. 0.732) with 71.86% sensitivity and 70.69% specificity, compared to PSAD's 74.87% and 63.15%. For csPCa, A-PSAD's AUC was 0.731 versus 0.708, with sensitivities of 76.27% and 57.61%. The nomogram model, based on Lasso-selected variables, achieved AUCs of 0.796 and 0.812 in the training and validation sets, with C-indices of 0.7870 and 0.7935, indicating good predictive performance. Decision curve analysis showed high clinical benefit across most risk thresholds. Incorporating PI-RADS, the Nomo2 model improved diagnostic performance in high-risk patients (AUC 0.8202) without significant difference from Nomo1 (AUC 0.8198, p > 0.05).
conclusionA-PSAD offers a better balance between sensitivity and specificity compared to PSAD, reducing false positives and unnecessary biopsies, and presents a promising tool for personalized PCa screening.
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.