MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clinical analysis of optimized neural network risk models to predict clinically significant prostate cancer and avoid unnecessary prostate biopsies.

2023· article· en· W4379281866 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Christopher J.D. Wallis, Robert J. Paproski, Desmond Pink, Catalina Vásquez, Adrian Fairey, M. Eric Hyndman, Armen Aprikian, Adam Kinnaird, Perrin H. Beatty, Christian P. Pavlovich, Leonard S. Marks, John D. Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of AlbertaPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersProstate Cancer Canada
KeywordsMedicineOverdiagnosisProstate cancerCohortCancerInternal medicineArtificial neural networkOncologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5023 Background: Given the low specificity of the current standard of care diagnostic tests for prostate cancer (PCa), there is an unmet clinical need for higher specificity tests to counter overdiagnosis of grade group (GG) 1 PCa. The aim of the study was to create optimized neural network risk models using PSA, free PSA, and other useful clinical features, and to validate the accuracy of the risk models to predict GG ≥2 PCa using real-world samples and data. Methods: Men aged 40-75 years with PSA >=3ng/mL and a biopsy referral were recruited into cohorts from sites in Canada (Kipnes Urology Centre (KUC), Edmonton, AB, and Prostate Cancer Centre (PCC), Calgary, AB) and the United States (Johns Hopkins University (JHU), Baltimore, ML and UCLA, Los Angeles, CA). Risk models to predict all GGs or GG ≥2 PCa were fit using data from KUC and JHU (train cohort n = 1037) while fixed models were validated on PCC (n = 401) and UCLA (n = 945). Prediction models were created using neural networks to generate the patient’s risk score. To compare the risk model test with PSA, the high-grade cancer detection sensitivity was fixed, and the number of biopsies needed to achieve that sensitivity was evaluated. Threshold values for the training cohort were determined using at least 95% sensitivity and maximum specificity. Threshold values for other clinical features and risk calculator outputs were set to match the test sensitivity when possible. Results: The optimized neural network risk models test had the highest area under the curve (AUC 0.81) for predicting GG ≥2 PCa on the validation cohorts compared to four other risk calculators; Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator 2.0 (PCPTRC) with free PSA (0.78, p-value<0.001), Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group risk calculator (PBCG, 0.73, p-value<0.0001), European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculator 3 (ERSPC-3, 0.72, p-value<0.0001), and PCPTRC with no free PSA (0.71, p-value<0.0001) and PSA (0.66, p-value<0.0001). At a threshold of 18.6%, this test provided 94% sensitivity, 37% specificity, 49% positive predictive value, and 90% NPV for predicting GG ≥2 PCa. If a biopsy was performed only when the tests’ risk score prediction was ≥17.8% for GG ≥2 PCa, 36-44% of unnecessary prostate biopsies could be avoided while missing 4-12% of patients with GG ≥2 prostate cancer. Conclusions: This neural network risk model is a tool that can be used to inform the physician of a patient’s risk of having GG ≥2 PCa on prostate biopsy. Using this novel test in the clinic is expected to significantly reduce the number and burden of unnecessary prostate biopsies. [Table: see text]

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.377 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207