{"title":"利用自动机器学习从常规实验室标记物预测前列腺癌。","authors":"Atilla Satır, Yasemin Üstündağ, Meryem Rümeysa Yeşil, Kağan Huysal","doi":"10.1002/jcla.25143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>In this study, we attempted to select the optimum cases for a prostate biopsy based on routine laboratory test results in addition to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test using H2O automated machine learning (AutoML) software, which includes many common machine learning algorithms.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The study included 737 patients (46–88 years old). Routine laboratory measurements were used to train machine learning models using H2O AutoML. We created a model that classifies prostate biopsy results as malignant or benign. The performance of the best model was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), log-loss metric, F1 score, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity, and specificity. The model's performance was evaluated through the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis feature-based interpretation method applied to comprehend the machine learning model.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The gradient boosting machine model was the most successful. The best result was obtained in the model with 11 parameters, including PSA, free PSA, free PSA to PSA, hemoglobin, neutrophils, platelets, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), glucose, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), lymphocytes, and age. The AUC of this model was 0.72, the specificity was 0.84, the PPV was 0.65, the NPV was 0.69, and the accuracy was 0.68.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Our results suggest that adding only routine laboratory parameters to the PSA test and developing machine learning algorithms can help reduce the number of unnecessary prostate biopsies without overlooking the diagnosis of PCa.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15509,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis","volume":"39 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jcla.25143","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prediction of Prostate Cancer From Routine Laboratory Markers With Automated Machine Learning\",\"authors\":\"Atilla Satır, Yasemin Üstündağ, Meryem Rümeysa Yeşil, Kağan Huysal\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jcla.25143\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>In this study, we attempted to select the optimum cases for a prostate biopsy based on routine laboratory test results in addition to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test using H2O automated machine learning (AutoML) software, which includes many common machine learning algorithms.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>The study included 737 patients (46–88 years old). Routine laboratory measurements were used to train machine learning models using H2O AutoML. We created a model that classifies prostate biopsy results as malignant or benign. The performance of the best model was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), log-loss metric, F1 score, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity, and specificity. The model's performance was evaluated through the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis feature-based interpretation method applied to comprehend the machine learning model.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The gradient boosting machine model was the most successful. The best result was obtained in the model with 11 parameters, including PSA, free PSA, free PSA to PSA, hemoglobin, neutrophils, platelets, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), glucose, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), lymphocytes, and age. The AUC of this model was 0.72, the specificity was 0.84, the PPV was 0.65, the NPV was 0.69, and the accuracy was 0.68.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Our results suggest that adding only routine laboratory parameters to the PSA test and developing machine learning algorithms can help reduce the number of unnecessary prostate biopsies without overlooking the diagnosis of PCa.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15509,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis\",\"volume\":\"39 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jcla.25143\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcla.25143\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcla.25143","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:在本研究中,我们尝试使用H2O自动机器学习(AutoML)软件,包括许多常见的机器学习算法,根据常规实验室检查结果和前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)血液检查来选择最佳的前列腺活检病例。方法:纳入患者737例,年龄46 ~ 88岁。常规实验室测量使用H2O AutoML训练机器学习模型。我们创建了一个模型,将前列腺活检结果分类为恶性或良性。采用受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC)、对数损失指标、F1评分、阳性预测值(PPV)、阴性预测值(NPV)、敏感性和特异性评价最佳模型的性能。通过SHapley加性解释(SHAP)分析来评估模型的性能,该分析基于特征的解释方法用于理解机器学习模型。结果:梯度增强机模型最成功。以PSA、游离PSA、游离PSA to PSA、血红蛋白、中性粒细胞、血小板、中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值(NLR)、葡萄糖、血小板与淋巴细胞比值(PLR)、淋巴细胞、年龄等11个参数为模型,结果最佳。该模型的AUC为0.72,特异性为0.84,PPV为0.65,NPV为0.69,准确率为0.68。结论:我们的研究结果表明,仅在PSA测试中添加常规实验室参数和开发机器学习算法可以帮助减少不必要的前列腺活检次数,同时又不会忽视前列腺癌的诊断。
Prediction of Prostate Cancer From Routine Laboratory Markers With Automated Machine Learning
Background
In this study, we attempted to select the optimum cases for a prostate biopsy based on routine laboratory test results in addition to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test using H2O automated machine learning (AutoML) software, which includes many common machine learning algorithms.
Methods
The study included 737 patients (46–88 years old). Routine laboratory measurements were used to train machine learning models using H2O AutoML. We created a model that classifies prostate biopsy results as malignant or benign. The performance of the best model was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), log-loss metric, F1 score, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity, and specificity. The model's performance was evaluated through the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis feature-based interpretation method applied to comprehend the machine learning model.
Results
The gradient boosting machine model was the most successful. The best result was obtained in the model with 11 parameters, including PSA, free PSA, free PSA to PSA, hemoglobin, neutrophils, platelets, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), glucose, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), lymphocytes, and age. The AUC of this model was 0.72, the specificity was 0.84, the PPV was 0.65, the NPV was 0.69, and the accuracy was 0.68.
Conclusion
Our results suggest that adding only routine laboratory parameters to the PSA test and developing machine learning algorithms can help reduce the number of unnecessary prostate biopsies without overlooking the diagnosis of PCa.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis publishes original articles on newly developing modes of technology and laboratory assays, with emphasis on their application in current and future clinical laboratory testing. This includes reports from the following fields: immunochemistry and toxicology, hematology and hematopathology, immunopathology, molecular diagnostics, microbiology, genetic testing, immunohematology, and clinical chemistry.