Use of machine learning to predict early biochemical recurrence after robot‐assisted prostatectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To train and compare machine-learning algorithms with traditional regression analysis for the prediction of early biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted prostatectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospectively collected dataset of 338 patients who underwent robot-assisted prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer was examined. We used three supervised machine-learning algorithms and 19 different training variables (demographic, clinical, imaging and operative data) in a hypothesis-free manner to build models that could predict patients with biochemical recurrence at 1 year. We also performed traditional Cox regression analysis for comparison. RESULTS: K-nearest neighbour, logistic regression and random forest classifier were used as machine-learning models. Classic Cox regression analysis had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.865 for the prediction of biochemical recurrence. All three of our machine-learning models (K-nearest neighbour (AUC 0.903), random forest tree (AUC 0.924) and logistic regression (AUC 0.940) outperformed the conventional statistical regression model. Accuracy prediction scores for K-nearest neighbour, random forest tree and logistic regression were 0.976, 0.953 and 0.976, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Machine-learning techniques can produce accurate disease predictability better that traditional statistical regression. These tools may prove clinically useful for the automated prediction of patients who develop early biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted prostatectomy. For these patients, appropriate individualized treatment options can improve outcomes and quality of life.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".