Multicenter Evaluation of an Artificial Neural Network to Increase the Prostate Cancer Detection Rate and Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The percentage of free prostate-specific antigen (%fPSA) has been shown to improve specificity for the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) over total PSA (tPSA). A multicenter study was performed to evaluate the diagnostic value of a %fPSA-based artificial neural network (ANN) in men with tPSA concentrations between 2 and 20 microg/L for detecting patients with increased risk of a positive prostate biopsy for cancer. METHODS: We enrolled 1188 men from six different hospitals with PCa or benign prostates between 1996 and 2001. We used a newly developed ANN with input data of tPSA, %fPSA, patient age, prostate volume, and digital rectal examination (DRE) status to calculate the risk for the presence of PCa within different tPSA ranges (2-4, 4.1-10, 2-10, 10.1-20, and 2-20 microg/L) at the 90% and 95% specificity or sensitivity cutoffs, depending on the tPSA concentration. ROC analysis and cutoff calculations were used to estimate the diagnostic improvement of the ANN compared with %fPSA alone. RESULTS: In the low tPSA range (2-4 microg/L), the ANN detected 72% and 65% of cancers at specificities of 90% or 95%, respectively. At 4-10 microg/L tPSA, the ANN detected 90% and 95% of cancers with specificities of 62% and 41%, respectively. Use of the ANN with 2-10 microg/L tPSA enhanced the specificity of %fPSA by 20-22%, thus reducing the number of unnecessary biopsies. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced accuracy of PCa detection over that obtained using %fPSA alone can be achieved with a %fPSA-based ANN that also includes clinical information from DRE and prostate volume measurements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".