Development of a Predictive Model for Prostate Cancer Using a Machine Learning Based Classification Algorithm

Prostate cancer remains one of the most prevalent malignancies among men worldwide, with early detection being crucial for effective treatment and improved survival outcomes. Traditional diagnostic procedures, such as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, digital rectal examination (DRE), and biopsy, often suffer from limitations including subjectivity, low specificity, and inconsistent accuracy. This study presents the development of a predictive model for prostate cancer using a machine learning-based classification algorithm, specifically the Support Vector Machine (SVM). The dataset utilised was obtained from a publicly available prostate cancer repository, containing relevant biomedical and demographic features. Preprocessing procedures, including normalisation and data transformation, were applied to enhance model quality and ensure robustness. Experimental results revealed that the SVM model achieved a high predictive accuracy of 84.8% under crossvalidation and 87% on full dataset evaluation, with a corresponding error rate of less than 0.17. These results demonstrate the model’s ability to accurately distinguish between malignant and non-malignant cases, validating its suitability for clinical decision support. The model’s performance further confirms the potential of SVM as an effective classification technique for medical diagnostics, especially where datasets exhibit complex, nonlinear feature interactions. This study emphasises the significance of machine learning in enhancing diagnostic precision and reliability within the medical domain. The outcomes provide valuable insights into integrating artificial intelligence into healthcare systems for early cancer detection, reducing diagnostic delays, and supporting medical professionals in clinical decision-making.

prostate cancer, support vector machine, machine learning, performance evaluation, classification

1. E. Zhang and X. Xiang, “Inference-based Naïve Bayes: Turning Naïve Bayes cost-sensitive,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 25, pp. 2302–2314, 2013, doi: 10.1109/TKDE.2010.49. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. R. C. Huang and C. Lin, “Generalized Bradley–Terry models and multi-class probability estimates,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 7, pp. 85–115, 2021. [Online]. Available: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1248551 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. E. T. Mohammed, “Internet traffic classification by aggregating correlated Naïve Bayes predictions,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, pp. 5–15, 2020. [Online]. Available: http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/journals/tifs/tifs8.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. O. K. Akinsola, H. Wookjoo, and J. Beom, “On the effectiveness of discretizing quantitative attributes in linear classifiers,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 1, pp. 1–28, 2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. H. Canfield, J. Zhang, J. C. Yang, N. Milton, and A. D. Alcántara, “An explanatory analysis of driver injury severity in rear-end crashes using a decision table/Naïve Bayes (DTNB) hybrid classifier,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 90, pp. 95–107, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2016.02.002. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Abdel-Zaher and A. Eldeib, “Evolutionary computational methods for optimizing the classification of sea stars in cancerous diseases,” in Proc. IEEE Winter Conf. Appl. Comput. Vis. Workshops (WACVW), 2015, pp. 44–50, doi: 10.1109/WACVW.2015.9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. J. Abdelhamied, “Multi-feature prostate cancer subset selection with K-neighbours classifier,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 55, pp. 110–127, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2013.10.019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. J. A. Bermejo, “Speeding up incremental wrapper feature subset selection with Naïve Bayes classifier,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 55, pp. 140–147, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2013.10.016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Mahammad and A. Roventa, “Computerized radiographic mass detection,” Knowledge-Based Systems, pp. 140–147, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2013.10.016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. S. Samy and N. Naser, “Prostate-specific antigen–based prostate cancer screening: Reduction of prostate cancer mortality after correction for nonattendance and contamination in the Rotterdam Section of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer,” European Urology, vol. 65, pp. 329–336, 2014. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Klein, “A guide for clinicians in the evaluation of emerging molecular diagnostics for newly diagnosed prostate cancer,” Reviews in Urology, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 172–180, 2014. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. J. Wein, L. R. Kavoussi, A. W. Partin, and C. A. Peters, Urology, 10th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier, 2012. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. F. Priya, “Vitamin E and the risk of prostate cancer: The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT),” JAMA, vol. 306, no. 14, pp. 549–556, 2011. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. J. Simon, “The effect of dietary and exercise interventions on body weight in prostate cancer patients: A systematic review,” Nutrition and Cancer, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 43–60, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. O. J. Osisanwo and I. Thompson, “The influence of finasteride on the development of prostate cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 349, pp. 215–224, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. K. Hernández, “Contemporary evaluation of the D’Amico risk classification of prostate cancer,” Urology, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 931–935, 2007. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. H. Wookjoo and J. Beom, “On the effectiveness of machine learning technique attributes in linear classifiers,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 1, pp. 1–28, 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. T. Ertosun and Y. F. Rubin, “Global cancer statistics, 2012,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 87–108, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. L. P. Sadhana, C. H. Bangma, and G. Leenders, “Prostate-specific antigen–based prostate cancer screening: Reduction of prostate cancer mortality after correction for nonattendance and contamination in the Rotterdam Section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer,” European Urology, vol. 65, pp. 329–336, 2014. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. B. Roventa, M. J. Alvarez, L. J. Martinez, and M. Saiz, “Prognostic role of genetic biomarkers in clinical progression of prostate cancer,” Experimental and Molecular Medicine, vol. 47, p. e176, 2022, doi: 10.1038/emm.2015.43. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. S. E. Qeethara-Kadhim, A. S. Kibel, and M. J. Kemeter, “A guide for clinicians in the evaluation of emerging molecular diagnostics for newly diagnosed prostate cancer,” Reviews in Urology, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 172–180, 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. J. Freasier, A. Heindenreich, P. J. Bastian, J. Bellmunt, and M. Bolla, “EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent—update 2013,” European Urology, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 124–137, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• "Towards GDP to GEP-Centric Model: A Proposed GEP Index Framework and Its Application in Haryana"
• Physicochemical Analysis of Petroleum Products in Selected Depots in Calabar Metropolis Cross River State and The Effects on Motor Engine
• Impact of Employee Welfare Measures on Workforce Well-Being in SBI: Insights from the Public Banking Sector
• Problem of Small-Scale Farmers in Agricutlure Sector in Tirunelveli Taluk
• Globalization, Economic Development, and Ecological Footprint in Tunisia: A QARDL Approach