机器学习预测磁共振成像PI-RADS与目标前列腺活检结果相关吗?

IF 2.2
Mostafa A Arafa, Karim H Farhat, Nesma Lotfy, Farrukh K Khan, Alaa Mokhtar, Abdulaziz M Althunayan, Waleed Al-Taweel, Sultan S Al-Khateeb, Sami Azhari, Danny M Rabah
{"title":"机器学习预测磁共振成像PI-RADS与目标前列腺活检结果相关吗?","authors":"Mostafa A Arafa, Karim H Farhat, Nesma Lotfy, Farrukh K Khan, Alaa Mokhtar, Abdulaziz M Althunayan, Waleed Al-Taweel, Sultan S Al-Khateeb, Sami Azhari, Danny M Rabah","doi":"10.1159/000546509","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to predict and classify magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores using different machine learning algorithms and to detect the concordance of PI-RADS scoring with the outcome target of prostate biopsy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Machine learning (ML) algorithms were used to develop best-fitting models for the prediction and classification of MRI PI-RAD. The Random Forest and Extra Trees models achieved the best performance compared to the other methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The accuracy of both models was 91.95%. The AUC was 0.9329 for the Random Forest model and 0.9404 for the Extra Trees model. PSA level, PSA density, and diameter of the largest lesion were the most important features for the importance of outcome classification. ML prediction enhanced the PI-RAD classification, where clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) cases increased from 0% to 1.9% in the low-risk PI-RAD class, this showed that the model identified some previously missed cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Predictive machine learning models showed an excellent ability to predict MRI Pi-RAD scores and discriminate between low- and high-risk scores. However, caution should be exercised, as a high percentage of negative biopsy cases were assigned Pi-RAD 4 and Pi-RAD 5 scores. ML integration may enhance PI-RAD's utility by reducing unnecessary biopsies in low-risk patients (via better csPCa detection) and refining the high-risk categorization. Combining such PI-RAD scores with significant parameters, such as PSA density, lesion diameter, number of lesions, and age, in decision curve analysis and utility paradigms would assist physicians' clinical decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":520708,"journal":{"name":"Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12201951/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does Machine Learning Prediction of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Correlate with Target Prostate Biopsy Results?\",\"authors\":\"Mostafa A Arafa, Karim H Farhat, Nesma Lotfy, Farrukh K Khan, Alaa Mokhtar, Abdulaziz M Althunayan, Waleed Al-Taweel, Sultan S Al-Khateeb, Sami Azhari, Danny M Rabah\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000546509\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to predict and classify magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores using different machine learning algorithms and to detect the concordance of PI-RADS scoring with the outcome target of prostate biopsy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Machine learning (ML) algorithms were used to develop best-fitting models for the prediction and classification of MRI PI-RAD. The Random Forest and Extra Trees models achieved the best performance compared to the other methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The accuracy of both models was 91.95%. The AUC was 0.9329 for the Random Forest model and 0.9404 for the Extra Trees model. PSA level, PSA density, and diameter of the largest lesion were the most important features for the importance of outcome classification. ML prediction enhanced the PI-RAD classification, where clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) cases increased from 0% to 1.9% in the low-risk PI-RAD class, this showed that the model identified some previously missed cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Predictive machine learning models showed an excellent ability to predict MRI Pi-RAD scores and discriminate between low- and high-risk scores. However, caution should be exercised, as a high percentage of negative biopsy cases were assigned Pi-RAD 4 and Pi-RAD 5 scores. ML integration may enhance PI-RAD's utility by reducing unnecessary biopsies in low-risk patients (via better csPCa detection) and refining the high-risk categorization. Combining such PI-RAD scores with significant parameters, such as PSA density, lesion diameter, number of lesions, and age, in decision curve analysis and utility paradigms would assist physicians' clinical decisions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520708,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12201951/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000546509\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000546509","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在使用不同的机器学习算法预测和分类MRI PI-RADs评分,并检测PI-RADs评分与前列腺活检结果目标的一致性。方法:采用机器学习(ML)算法建立MRI PI-RAD预测和分类的最佳拟合模型。与其他方法相比,随机森林模型和额外树模型取得了最好的性能。结果:两种模型的准确率均为91.95%。随机森林模型的AUC为0.9329,Extra Trees模型的AUC为0.9404。PSA水平、PSA密度和最大病变直径是影响预后分类重要性的最重要特征。ML预测增强了PI-RAD分类,其中临床显著的前列腺癌(csPCa)病例在低风险PI-RAD分类中从0%增加到1.9%,这表明该模型识别了一些以前遗漏的病例。结论:预测机器学习模型显示出预测MRI Pi-RAD评分和区分低和高风险评分的出色能力。然而,应谨慎行事,因为很大比例的活检阴性病例被评为Pi-RAD 4和Pi-RAD 5评分。ML整合可以通过减少低风险患者不必要的活检(通过更好的csPCa检测)和细化高风险分类来增强PI-RAD的效用。将PI-RAD评分与PSA密度、病变直径、病变数量、年龄等重要参数在决策曲线分析和效用范式中结合,有助于医生的临床决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Does Machine Learning Prediction of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Correlate with Target Prostate Biopsy Results?

Objectives: This study aimed to predict and classify magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores using different machine learning algorithms and to detect the concordance of PI-RADS scoring with the outcome target of prostate biopsy.

Methods: Machine learning (ML) algorithms were used to develop best-fitting models for the prediction and classification of MRI PI-RAD. The Random Forest and Extra Trees models achieved the best performance compared to the other methods.

Results: The accuracy of both models was 91.95%. The AUC was 0.9329 for the Random Forest model and 0.9404 for the Extra Trees model. PSA level, PSA density, and diameter of the largest lesion were the most important features for the importance of outcome classification. ML prediction enhanced the PI-RAD classification, where clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) cases increased from 0% to 1.9% in the low-risk PI-RAD class, this showed that the model identified some previously missed cases.

Conclusions: Predictive machine learning models showed an excellent ability to predict MRI Pi-RAD scores and discriminate between low- and high-risk scores. However, caution should be exercised, as a high percentage of negative biopsy cases were assigned Pi-RAD 4 and Pi-RAD 5 scores. ML integration may enhance PI-RAD's utility by reducing unnecessary biopsies in low-risk patients (via better csPCa detection) and refining the high-risk categorization. Combining such PI-RAD scores with significant parameters, such as PSA density, lesion diameter, number of lesions, and age, in decision curve analysis and utility paradigms would assist physicians' clinical decisions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信