Literature DB >> 30318331

askMUSIC: Leveraging a Clinical Registry to Develop a New Machine Learning Model to Inform Patients of Prostate Cancer Treatments Chosen by Similar Men.

Gregory B Auffenberg1, Khurshid R Ghani2, Shreyas Ramani3, Etiowo Usoro3, Brian Denton4, Craig Rogers5, Benjamin Stockton6, David C Miller2, Karandeep Singh7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinical registries provide physicians with a means for making data-driven decisions but few opportunities exist for patients to interact with registry data to help make decisions.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop a web-based system that uses a prostate cancer (CaP) registry to provide newly diagnosed men with a platform to view predicted treatment decisions based on patients with similar characteristics. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) is a quality improvement consortium of urology practices that maintains a prospective registry of men with CaP. We used registry data from 45 MUSIC urology practices from 2015 to 2017 to develop and validate a random forest machine learning model. After fitting the random forest model to a derivation cohort consisting of a random two-thirds sample of patients after stratifying by practice location, we evaluated the model performance in a validation cohort consisting of the remaining one-third of patients using a multiclass area under the curve (AUC) measure and calibration plots. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We identified 7543 men diagnosed with CaP, of whom 45% underwent radical prostatectomy, 30% surveillance, 17% radiation therapy, 5.6% androgen deprivation, and 1.8% watchful waiting. The personalized prediction for patients in the validation cohort was highly accurate (AUC 0.81).
CONCLUSIONS: Using clinical registry data and machine learning methods, we created a web-based platform for patients that generates accurate predictions for most CaP treatments. PATIENT
SUMMARY: We have developed and tested a tool to help men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer to view predicted treatment decisions based on similar patients from our registry. We have made this tool available online for patients to use.
Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Machine learning; Patient education; Prostate cancer

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30318331      PMCID: PMC6459726          DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.09.050

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  20 in total

1.  Contemporary use of initial active surveillance among men in Michigan with low-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Paul R Womble; James E Montie; Zaojun Ye; Susan M Linsell; Brian R Lane; David C Miller
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-08-24       Impact factor: 20.096

2.  How a regional collaborative of hospitals and physicians in Michigan cut costs and improved the quality of care.

Authors:  David A Share; Darrell A Campbell; Nancy Birkmeyer; Richard L Prager; Hitinder S Gurm; Mauro Moscucci; Marianne Udow-Phillips; John D Birkmeyer
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 6.301

3.  Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases.

Authors:  Aylin Caliskan; Joanna J Bryson; Arvind Narayanan
Journal:  Science       Date:  2017-04-14       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  A 'green button' for using aggregate patient data at the point of care.

Authors:  Christopher A Longhurst; Robert A Harrington; Nigam H Shah
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 6.301

5.  Moving From Clinical Trials to Precision Medicine: The Role for Predictive Modeling.

Authors:  Michael J Pencina; Eric D Peterson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-04-26       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Contemporary risk model for inhospital major bleeding for patients with acute myocardial infarction: The acute coronary treatment and intervention outcomes network (ACTION) registry®-Get With The Guidelines (GWTG)®.

Authors:  Nihar R Desai; Kevin F Kennedy; David J Cohen; Traci Connolly; Deborah B Diercks; Mauro Moscucci; Stephen Ramee; John Spertus; Tracy Y Wang; Robert L McNamara
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2017-08-12       Impact factor: 4.749

7.  The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; David J Pasta; Eric P Elkin; Mark S Litwin; David M Latini; Janeen Du Chane; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Patients' Survival Expectations With and Without Their Chosen Treatment for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Jinping Xu; James Janisse; Julie J Ruterbusch; Joel Ager; Joe Liu; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Kendra L Schwartz
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 5.166

Review 9.  Patient decision aids for prostate cancer treatment: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Grace A Lin; David S Aaronson; Sara J Knight; Peter R Carroll; R Adams Dudley
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2009-10-19       Impact factor: 508.702

10.  Appropriateness Criteria for Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Michael L Cher; Apoorv Dhir; Gregory B Auffenberg; Susan Linsell; Yuqing Gao; Bradley Rosenberg; S Mohammad Jafri; Laurence Klotz; David C Miller; Khurshid R Ghani; Steven J Bernstein; James E Montie; Brian R Lane
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-07-14       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Current and future applications of machine and deep learning in urology: a review of the literature on urolithiasis, renal cell carcinoma, and bladder and prostate cancer.

Authors:  Rodrigo Suarez-Ibarrola; Simon Hein; Gerd Reis; Christian Gratzke; Arkadiusz Miernik
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-11-05       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 2.  Machine learning in the optimization of robotics in the operative field.

Authors:  Runzhuo Ma; Erik B Vanstrum; Ryan Lee; Jian Chen; Andrew J Hung
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 2.808

3.  Methodological conduct of prognostic prediction models developed using machine learning in oncology: a systematic review.

Authors:  Paula Dhiman; Jie Ma; Constanza L Andaur Navarro; Benjamin Speich; Garrett Bullock; Johanna A A Damen; Lotty Hooft; Shona Kirtley; Richard D Riley; Ben Van Calster; Karel G M Moons; Gary S Collins
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2022-04-08       Impact factor: 4.615

4.  Neighborhood-based inference and restricted Boltzmann machine for microbe and drug associations prediction.

Authors:  Xiaolong Cheng; Jia Qu; Shuangbao Song; Zekang Bian
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2022-08-15       Impact factor: 3.061

Review 5.  The past, present, and future of urological quality improvement collaboratives.

Authors:  Adam C Reese; Serge Ginzburg
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-05

Review 6.  Machine learning applications to enhance patient specific care for urologic surgery.

Authors:  Patrick W Doyle; Nicholas L Kavoussi
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-05-28       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Machine Learning in Clinical Journals: Moving From Inscrutable to Informative.

Authors:  Karandeep Singh; Andrew L Beam; Brahmajee K Nallamothu
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2020-10-14

8.  A data-driven performance dashboard for surgical dissection.

Authors:  Amir Baghdadi; Sanju Lama; Rahul Singh; Hamidreza Hoshyarmanesh; Mohammadsaleh Razmi; Garnette R Sutherland
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-22       Impact factor: 4.379

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.