Literature DB >> 12324513

Comparison of logistic regression and neural net modeling for prediction of prostate cancer pathologic stage.

Robert W Veltri1, Manisha Chaudhari, M Craig Miller, Edward C Poole, Gerard J O'Dowd, Alan W Partin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) pathologic staging remains a challenge for the physician using individual pretreatment variables. We have previously reported that UroScore, a logistic regression (LR)-derived algorithm, can correctly predict organ-confined (OC) disease state with >90% accuracy. This study compares statistical and neural network (NN) approaches to predict PCa stage.
METHODS: A subset (756 of 817) of radical prostatectomy patients was assessed: 434 with OC disease, 173 with capsular penetration (NOC-CP), and 149 with metastases (NOC-AD) in the training sample. Additionally, an OC + NOC-CP (n = 607) vs NOC-AD (n = 149) two-outcome model was prepared. Validation sets included 120 or 397 cases not used for modeling. Input variables included clinical and several quantitative biopsy pathology variables. The classification accuracies achieved with a NN with an error back-propagation architecture were compared with those of LR statistical modeling.
RESULTS: We demonstrated >95% detection of OC PCa in three-outcome models, using both computational approaches. For training patient samples that were equally distributed for the three-outcome models, NNs gave a significantly higher overall classification accuracy than the LR approach (40% vs 96%, respectively). In the two-outcome models using either unequal or equal case distribution, the NNs had only a marginal advantage in classification accuracy over LR.
CONCLUSIONS: The strength of a mathematics-based disease-outcome model depends on the quality of the input variables, quantity of cases, case sample input distribution, and computational methods of data processing of inputs and outputs. We identified specific advantages for NNs, especially in the prediction of multiple-outcome models, related to the ability to pre- and postprocess inputs and outputs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12324513

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Chem        ISSN: 0009-9147            Impact factor:   8.327


  8 in total

1.  Computer-aided interpretation approach for optical tomographic images.

Authors:  Christian D Klose; Alexander D Klose; Uwe J Netz; Alexander K Scheel; Jurgen Beuthan; Andreas H Hielscher
Journal:  J Biomed Opt       Date:  2010 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.170

Review 2.  Artificial neural networks and prostate cancer--tools for diagnosis and management.

Authors:  Xinhai Hu; Henning Cammann; Hellmuth-A Meyer; Kurt Miller; Klaus Jung; Carsten Stephan
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-02-12       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Image-based clinical decision support for transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: comparison of multiple logistic regression, artificial neural network, and support vector machine.

Authors:  Hak Jong Lee; Sung Il Hwang; Seok-Min Han; Seong Ho Park; Seung Hyup Kim; Jeong Yeon Cho; Chang Gyu Seong; Gheeyoung Choe
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-12-17       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Genetic classification of severe early childhood caries by use of subtracted DNA fragments from Streptococcus mutans.

Authors:  Deepak Saxena; Page W Caufield; Yihong Li; Stuart Brown; Jinmei Song; Robert Norman
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2008-07-02       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  Use of genetic programming, logistic regression, and artificial neural nets to predict readmission after coronary artery bypass surgery.

Authors:  Milo Engoren; Robert H Habib; John J Dooner; Thomas A Schwann
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2013-03-16       Impact factor: 2.502

6.  A systematic review of the applications of Expert Systems (ES) and machine learning (ML) in clinical urology.

Authors:  Hesham Salem; Daniele Soria; Jonathan N Lund; Amir Awwad
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2021-07-22       Impact factor: 2.796

7.  Staging of prostate cancer using automatic feature selection, sampling and Dempster-Shafer fusion.

Authors:  Sandeep Chandana; Henry Leung; Kiril Trpkov
Journal:  Cancer Inform       Date:  2009-02-03

8.  Evaluation of prediction models for the staging of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Susie Boyce; Yue Fan; Ronald William Watson; Thomas Brendan Murphy
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2013-11-15       Impact factor: 2.796

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.