Machine learning discrimination of Gleason scores below GG3 and above GG4 for HSPC patients diagnosis

This study aims to develop machine learning (ML)-assisted models for analyzing datasets related to Gleason scores in prostate cancer, conducting statistical analyses on the datasets, and identifying meaningful features. We retrospectively collected data from 717 hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC) patients at Yunnan Cancer Hospital. Of these, data from 526 patients were used for modeling. Seven auxiliary models were established using Logistic Regression (LR), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), Decision Tree (DT), Extreme gradient boosting tree (XGBoost), Adaptive Boosting (Adaboost), and artificial neural network (ANN) based on 21 clinical biochemical indicators and features. Evaluation metrics included accuracy (ACC), precision (PRE), specificity (SPE), sensitivity (SEN) or regression rate(Recall), and f1 score. Evaluation metrics for the models primarily included ACC, PRE, SPE, SEN or Recall, f1 score, and area under the curve(AUC). Evaluation metrics were visualized using confusion matrices and ROC curves. Among the ensemble learning methods, RF, XGBoost, and Adaboost performed the best. RF achieved a training dataset score of 0.769 (95% CI: 0.759-0.835) and a testing dataset score of 0.755 (95% CI: 0.660-0.760) (AUC: 0.786, 95%CI: 0.722-0.803), while XGBoost achieved a training dataset score of 0.755 (95% CI: 95%CI: 0.711-0.809) and a testing dataset score of 0.745 (95% CI: 0.660-0.764) (AUC: 0.777, 95% CI: 0.726-0.798). Adaboost scored 0.789 on the training dataset (95% CI: 0.782-0.857) and 0.774 on the testing dataset (95% CI: 0.651-0.774) (AUC: 0.799, 95% CI: 0.703-0.802). In terms of feature importance (FI) in ensemble learning, Bone metastases at first visit, prostatic volume, age, and T1-T2 have significant proportions in RF's FI. fPSA, TPSA, and tumor burden have significant proportions in Adaboost's FI, while f/TPSA, LDH, and testosterone have the highest proportions in XGBoost. Our findings indicate that ensemble learning methods demonstrate good performance in classifying HSPC patient data, with TNM staging and fPSA being important classification indicators. These discoveries provide valuable references for distinguishing different Gleason scores, facilitating more accurate patient assessments and personalized treatment plans.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Scientific Reports
Published
2024-10-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-77033-1
Primary Topic
Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Machine learning discrimination of Gleason scores below GG3 and above GG4 for HSPC patients diagnosis

Huijian Wang, Ji Li, Feiyu Yin, Longguo Dai et al.
Scientific Reports
Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
article

Machine learning discrimination of Gleason scores below GG3 and above GG4 for HSPC patients diagnosis

Huijian Wang, Ji Li, Feiyu Yin, Longguo Dai, Bingyu Zhu, Haiyang Jiang, Hu Chen, Chongjian Zhang, Libo Yang, Yu Bai, Ruiqian Li, Enfa Ning, Yang Wang, Kun Zhang, Jun Li, Yang Hong, Qilin Wang, Hongyi Wu
article en

Abstract

This study aims to develop machine learning (ML)-assisted models for analyzing datasets related to Gleason scores in prostate cancer, conducting statistical analyses on the datasets, and identifying meaningful features. We retrospectively collected data from 717 hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC) patients at Yunnan Cancer Hospital. Of these, data from 526 patients were used for modeling. Seven auxiliary models were established using Logistic Regression (LR), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), Decision Tree (DT), Extreme gradient boosting tree (XGBoost), Adaptive Boosting (Adaboost), and artificial neural network (ANN) based on 21 clinical biochemical indicators and features. Evaluation metrics included accuracy (ACC), precision (PRE), specificity (SPE), sensitivity (SEN) or regression rate(Recall), and f1 score. Evaluation metrics for the models primarily included ACC, PRE, SPE, SEN or Recall, f1 score, and area under the curve(AUC). Evaluation metrics were visualized using confusion matrices and ROC curves. Among the ensemble learning methods, RF, XGBoost, and Adaboost performed the best. RF achieved a training dataset score of 0.769 (95% CI: 0.759-0.835) and a testing dataset score of 0.755 (95% CI: 0.660-0.760) (AUC: 0.786, 95%CI: 0.722-0.803), while XGBoost achieved a training dataset score of 0.755 (95% CI: 95%CI: 0.711-0.809) and a testing dataset score of 0.745 (95% CI: 0.660-0.764) (AUC: 0.777, 95% CI: 0.726-0.798). Adaboost scored 0.789 on the training dataset (95% CI: 0.782-0.857) and 0.774 on the testing dataset (95% CI: 0.651-0.774) (AUC: 0.799, 95% CI: 0.703-0.802). In terms of feature importance (FI) in ensemble learning, Bone metastases at first visit, prostatic volume, age, and T1-T2 have significant proportions in RF's FI. fPSA, TPSA, and tumor burden have significant proportions in Adaboost's FI, while f/TPSA, LDH, and testosterone have the highest proportions in XGBoost. Our findings indicate that ensemble learning methods demonstrate good performance in classifying HSPC patient data, with TNM staging and fPSA being important classification indicators. These discoveries provide valuable references for distinguishing different Gleason scores, facilitating more accurate patient assessments and personalized treatment plans.

Scientific ReportsVol. 14(1)
Peking University (CN), Kunming Medical University (CN), Peking University Cancer Hospital (CN)
National Natural Science Foundation of China, Kunming Medical University, Yunnan Provincial Science and Technology Department
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 65%
Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.