A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

A Novel Machine Learning-based Predictive Model of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer and Online Risk Calculator. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Objective: To create a machine-learning predictive model combining prostate imaging-reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score, PSA density, and clinical variables to predict clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).

Methods: We evaluated a cohort of patients who underwent prostate biopsy for suspected prostate cancer (PCa) in New Zealand, Australia, and Switzerland. We collected data on age, body mass index (BMI), PSA level, prostate volume, PSA density (PSAD), PI-RADS scores, previous biopsy, and corresponding histology results. The dataset was divided into derivation (training) and validation (test) sets using random splits. An independent dataset was obtained from the Harvard Dataverse for external validation. A cohort of 1272 patients was analyzed. We fitted a Lasso model, XGBoost, and LightGBM to the training set and assessed their accuracy.

Results: All models demonstrated ROC-AUC values ranging from 0.830 to 0.851. LightGBM was considered the superior model, with an ROC of 0.851 (95%CI: 0.804-0.897) in the test set and 0.818 (95% CI: 0.798-0.831) in the external dataset. The most important variable was PI-RADS, followed by PSA density, history of previous biopsy, age, and BMI.

Conclusion: We developed a predictive model for detecting csPCa that exhibited a high ROC-AUC value for internal and external validations. This suggests that the integration of the clinical parameters outperformed each individual predictor. Additionally, the model demonstrated good calibration metrics, indicative of a more balanced model than the existing models.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2024.11.001DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

predictive model
12
prostate cancer
12
psa density
12
clinically prostate
8
previous biopsy
8
model
7
prostate
6
novel machine
4
machine learning-based
4
learning-based predictive
4

Similar Publications