Building Dual AI Models and Nomograms Using Noninvasive Parameters for Aiding Male Bladder Outlet Obstruction Diagnosis and Minimizing the Need for Invasive Video-Urodynamic Studies: Development and Validation Study
Chung-You Tsai,Jing-Hui Tian,Chien-Cheng Lee,Hann-Chorng Kuo
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/58599
2024-07-23
Abstract:Background: Diagnosing underlying causes of nonneurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms associated with bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) is challenging. Video-urodynamic studies (VUDS) and pressure-flow studies (PFS) are both invasive diagnostic methods for BOO. VUDS can more precisely differentiate etiologies of male BOO, such as benign prostatic obstruction, primary bladder neck obstruction, and dysfunctional voiding, potentially outperforming PFS. Objective: These examinations' invasive nature highlights the need for developing noninvasive predictive models to facilitate BOO diagnosis and reduce the necessity for invasive procedures. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study with a cohort of men with medication-refractory, nonneurogenic lower urinary tract symptoms suspected of BOO who underwent VUDS from 2001 to 2022. In total, 2 BOO predictive models were developed-1 based on the International Continence Society's definition (International Continence Society-defined bladder outlet obstruction; ICS-BOO) and the other on video-urodynamic studies-diagnosed bladder outlet obstruction (VBOO). The patient cohort was randomly split into training and test sets for analysis. A total of 6 machine learning algorithms, including logistic regression, were used for model development. During model development, we first performed development validation using repeated 5-fold cross-validation on the training set and then test validation to assess the model's performance on an independent test set. Both models were implemented as paper-based nomograms and integrated into a web-based artificial intelligence prediction tool to aid clinical decision-making. Results: Among 307 patients, 26.7% (n=82) met the ICS-BOO criteria, while 82.1% (n=252) were diagnosed with VBOO. The ICS-BOO prediction model had a mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.74 (SD 0.09) and mean accuracy of 0.76 (SD 0.04) in development validation and AUC and accuracy of 0.86 and 0.77, respectively, in test validation. The VBOO prediction model yielded a mean AUC of 0.71 (SD 0.06) and mean accuracy of 0.77 (SD 0.06) internally, with AUC and accuracy of 0.72 and 0.76, respectively, externally. When both models' predictions are applied to the same patient, their combined insights can significantly enhance clinical decision-making and simplify the diagnostic pathway. By the dual-model prediction approach, if both models positively predict BOO, suggesting all cases actually resulted from medication-refractory primary bladder neck obstruction or benign prostatic obstruction, surgical intervention may be considered. Thus, VUDS might be unnecessary for 100 (32.6%) patients. Conversely, when ICS-BOO predictions are negative but VBOO predictions are positive, indicating varied etiology, VUDS rather than PFS is advised for precise diagnosis and guiding subsequent therapy, accurately identifying 51.1% (47/92) of patients for VUDS. Conclusions: The 2 machine learning models predicting ICS-BOO and VBOO, based on 6 noninvasive clinical parameters, demonstrate commendable discrimination performance. Using the dual-model prediction approach, when both models predict positively, VUDS may be avoided, assisting in male BOO diagnosis and reducing the need for such invasive procedures.