Cargando…

A comparison of machine learning models for predicting urinary incontinence in men with localized prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION: Urinary incontinence (UI) is a common side effect of prostate cancer treatment, but in clinical practice, it is difficult to predict. Machine learning (ML) models have shown promising results in predicting outcomes, yet the lack of transparency in complex models known as “black-box” ha...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hasannejadasl, Hajar, Osong, Biche, Bermejo, Inigo, van der Poel, Henk, Vanneste, Ben, van Roermund, Joep, Aben, Katja, Zhang, Zhen, Kiemeney, Lambertus, Van Oort, Inge, Verwey, Renee, Hochstenbach, Laura, Bloemen, Esther, Dekker, Andre, Fijten, Rianne R. R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10130634/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37124522
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1168219
_version_ 1785030999923490816
author Hasannejadasl, Hajar
Osong, Biche
Bermejo, Inigo
van der Poel, Henk
Vanneste, Ben
van Roermund, Joep
Aben, Katja
Zhang, Zhen
Kiemeney, Lambertus
Van Oort, Inge
Verwey, Renee
Hochstenbach, Laura
Bloemen, Esther
Dekker, Andre
Fijten, Rianne R. R.
author_facet Hasannejadasl, Hajar
Osong, Biche
Bermejo, Inigo
van der Poel, Henk
Vanneste, Ben
van Roermund, Joep
Aben, Katja
Zhang, Zhen
Kiemeney, Lambertus
Van Oort, Inge
Verwey, Renee
Hochstenbach, Laura
Bloemen, Esther
Dekker, Andre
Fijten, Rianne R. R.
author_sort Hasannejadasl, Hajar
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Urinary incontinence (UI) is a common side effect of prostate cancer treatment, but in clinical practice, it is difficult to predict. Machine learning (ML) models have shown promising results in predicting outcomes, yet the lack of transparency in complex models known as “black-box” has made clinicians wary of relying on them in sensitive decisions. Therefore, finding a balance between accuracy and explainability is crucial for the implementation of ML models. The aim of this study was to employ three different ML classifiers to predict the probability of experiencing UI in men with localized prostate cancer 1-year and 2-year after treatment and compare their accuracy and explainability. METHODS: We used the ProZIB dataset from the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (Integraal Kankercentrum Nederland; IKNL) which contained clinical, demographic, and PROM data of 964 patients from 65 Dutch hospitals. Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), and Support Vector Machine (SVM) algorithms were applied to predict (in)continence after prostate cancer treatment. RESULTS: All models have been externally validated according to the TRIPOD Type 3 guidelines and their performance was assessed by accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC. While all three models demonstrated similar performance, LR showed slightly better accuracy than RF and SVM in predicting the risk of UI one year after prostate cancer treatment, achieving an accuracy of 0.75, a sensitivity of 0.82, and an AUC of 0.79. All models for the 2-year outcome performed poorly in the validation set, with an accuracy of 0.6 for LR, 0.65 for RF, and 0.54 for SVM. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of our study demonstrate the promise of using non-black box models, such as LR, to assist clinicians in recognizing high-risk patients and making informed treatment choices. The coefficients of the LR model show the importance of each feature in predicting results, and the generated nomogram provides an accessible illustration of how each feature impacts the predicted outcome. Additionally, the model’s simplicity and interpretability make it a more appropriate option in scenarios where comprehending the model’s predictions is essential.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10130634
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101306342023-04-27 A comparison of machine learning models for predicting urinary incontinence in men with localized prostate cancer Hasannejadasl, Hajar Osong, Biche Bermejo, Inigo van der Poel, Henk Vanneste, Ben van Roermund, Joep Aben, Katja Zhang, Zhen Kiemeney, Lambertus Van Oort, Inge Verwey, Renee Hochstenbach, Laura Bloemen, Esther Dekker, Andre Fijten, Rianne R. R. Front Oncol Oncology INTRODUCTION: Urinary incontinence (UI) is a common side effect of prostate cancer treatment, but in clinical practice, it is difficult to predict. Machine learning (ML) models have shown promising results in predicting outcomes, yet the lack of transparency in complex models known as “black-box” has made clinicians wary of relying on them in sensitive decisions. Therefore, finding a balance between accuracy and explainability is crucial for the implementation of ML models. The aim of this study was to employ three different ML classifiers to predict the probability of experiencing UI in men with localized prostate cancer 1-year and 2-year after treatment and compare their accuracy and explainability. METHODS: We used the ProZIB dataset from the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (Integraal Kankercentrum Nederland; IKNL) which contained clinical, demographic, and PROM data of 964 patients from 65 Dutch hospitals. Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), and Support Vector Machine (SVM) algorithms were applied to predict (in)continence after prostate cancer treatment. RESULTS: All models have been externally validated according to the TRIPOD Type 3 guidelines and their performance was assessed by accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC. While all three models demonstrated similar performance, LR showed slightly better accuracy than RF and SVM in predicting the risk of UI one year after prostate cancer treatment, achieving an accuracy of 0.75, a sensitivity of 0.82, and an AUC of 0.79. All models for the 2-year outcome performed poorly in the validation set, with an accuracy of 0.6 for LR, 0.65 for RF, and 0.54 for SVM. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of our study demonstrate the promise of using non-black box models, such as LR, to assist clinicians in recognizing high-risk patients and making informed treatment choices. The coefficients of the LR model show the importance of each feature in predicting results, and the generated nomogram provides an accessible illustration of how each feature impacts the predicted outcome. Additionally, the model’s simplicity and interpretability make it a more appropriate option in scenarios where comprehending the model’s predictions is essential. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-04-12 /pmc/articles/PMC10130634/ /pubmed/37124522 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1168219 Text en Copyright © 2023 Hasannejadasl, Osong, Bermejo, van der Poel, Vanneste, van Roermund, Aben, Zhang, Kiemeney, Van Oort, Verwey, Hochstenbach, Bloemen, Dekker and Fijten https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Oncology
Hasannejadasl, Hajar
Osong, Biche
Bermejo, Inigo
van der Poel, Henk
Vanneste, Ben
van Roermund, Joep
Aben, Katja
Zhang, Zhen
Kiemeney, Lambertus
Van Oort, Inge
Verwey, Renee
Hochstenbach, Laura
Bloemen, Esther
Dekker, Andre
Fijten, Rianne R. R.
A comparison of machine learning models for predicting urinary incontinence in men with localized prostate cancer
title A comparison of machine learning models for predicting urinary incontinence in men with localized prostate cancer
title_full A comparison of machine learning models for predicting urinary incontinence in men with localized prostate cancer
title_fullStr A comparison of machine learning models for predicting urinary incontinence in men with localized prostate cancer
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of machine learning models for predicting urinary incontinence in men with localized prostate cancer
title_short A comparison of machine learning models for predicting urinary incontinence in men with localized prostate cancer
title_sort comparison of machine learning models for predicting urinary incontinence in men with localized prostate cancer
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10130634/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37124522
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1168219
work_keys_str_mv AT hasannejadaslhajar acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT osongbiche acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT bermejoinigo acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT vanderpoelhenk acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT vannesteben acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT vanroermundjoep acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT abenkatja acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT zhangzhen acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT kiemeneylambertus acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT vanoortinge acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT verweyrenee acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT hochstenbachlaura acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT bloemenesther acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT dekkerandre acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT fijtenriannerr acomparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT hasannejadaslhajar comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT osongbiche comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT bermejoinigo comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT vanderpoelhenk comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT vannesteben comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT vanroermundjoep comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT abenkatja comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT zhangzhen comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT kiemeneylambertus comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT vanoortinge comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT verweyrenee comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT hochstenbachlaura comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT bloemenesther comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT dekkerandre comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer
AT fijtenriannerr comparisonofmachinelearningmodelsforpredictingurinaryincontinenceinmenwithlocalizedprostatecancer