MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An external validation and comparison of the predictive accuracy of four models designed to predict the probability of a positive prostate biopsy

2016· article· en· W3030120674 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Li Wang, Gang Li, Gansheng Xie, Xuefeng Zhang, Huming Yin, Qin Hu, Ye Chen, Jinxian Pu

Bibliographic record

VenueZhonghua miniao waike zazhi · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRectal examinationMedicineProstate cancerProstateBiopsyProstate-specific antigenUrologyReceiver operating characteristicProstate biopsyUltrasoundGynecologyCancerRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To validate and compare the predictive accuracy of four prostate cancer models designed to predict the likelihood of a positive initial transrectal biopsy. Methods Clinical data of 813 consecutive patients between January 2010 and September 2014 who had undergone a transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy at our institution were reviewed, 431 patients fulfilling all criteria for four predictive models were enrolled for the final analysis. The risk of each individual positive biopsy was calculated using either of the four models. The predictive accuracy of each model was measured using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and the comparison of AUCs was performed by Z test. Results Of 431 participants, the statistical analysis of age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), digital rectal examination (DRE), prostate volume and TRUS findings were all significantly different(P<0.05), except percentage of free prostate-specific antigen (%fPSA) (P=0.242) . AUCs were 0.774 (95% CI 0.726-0.822), 0.765 (95% CI 0.714-0.816), 0.813 (95% CI 0.767-0.858), 0.795 (95% CI 0.749-0.842) and 0.736 (95% CI 0.684-0.788) for the North-American prostate cancer prevention trial derived cancer risk calculator (PCPT-CRC) model, Montreal model, domestic model 1, domestic model 2 and PSA alone, respectively. There was no significant difference among AUCs of the four models, and a 7.7% increased predictive accuracy was observed for the domestic model 1 compared to unlimited PSA alone(P<0.05). When serum PSA ranging from 4 to 10 ng/ml, AUCs were 0.688(95% CI 0.560-0.816), 0.818 (95% CI 0.719-0.918), 0.830 (95% CI 0.740-0.919), 0.853(95% CI 0.771-0.935) and 0.565(95% CI 0.419-0.710) for the four models and PSA alone, respectively. Domestic model 2 owned the highest predictive accuracy and a 28.8% increased predictive accuracy was observed for the domestic model 2 compared to PSA alone(P<0.05). Conclusions External validation and comparison of the four models reveals that all of the four models have acceptable predictive accuracy in our cohort. There is no difference of predictive accuracy between foreign and domestic models according to the AUC results. However, domestic model 1 is superior to unlimited PSA alone, and domestic model 2 has the highest predictive accuracy when serum PSA ranging from 4 to 10 ng/ml. Key words: Prostate cancer; Prostate biopsy; Predictive model

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZhonghua miniao waike zazhiSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207