## 3 Results
### Diagnostic Performance of the Predictive Models
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Unvariable Analysis**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Multivariable Analysis**} \\ \hline  & **OR** & **95\% CI** & _p_**-Value** & **OR** & **95\% CI** & _p_**-Value** \\ \hline Age at surgery, year & 1.06 & 1.01, 1.12 & 0.011 & 1.07 & 1.02, 1.13 & 0.007 \\ \hline BMI, kg/m\({}^{2}\) & 0.93 & 0.84, 1.04 & 0.215 & & & \\ \hline PSA, ng/mL & 1.00 & 0.99, 1.01 & 0.814 & & & \\ \hline History of TURP & 5.36 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.63, 45.52} & 0.124 & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{ISUP category and biopsy Gleason score} \\ \hline
1, 6 (3 + 3) & \multicolumn{4}{c}{0.605} \\ \hline
2, 7 (3 + 4) & 1.01 & 0.36, 2.83 & 0.980 & \\ \hline
3, 7 (4 + 3) & 0.85 & 0.31, 2.27 & 0.740 & \\ \hline
4, 8 & 1.27 & 0.43, 3.76 & 0.667 & \\ \hline
5, 9 & 1.96 & 0.58, 6.61 & 0.276 & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Surgical approach} \\ \hline Open & ref & \multicolumn{4}{c}{0.196} \\ \hline Laparoscopic & 1.78 & 0.80, 3.95 & 0.156 & \\ \hline Robotic & 2.04 & 0.72, 5.79 & 0.183 & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Anatomic finding on MRI} \\ \hline PV, mm\({}^{3}\) & 1.01 & 0.99, 1.02 & 0.323 & & \\ \hline MUL, mm & 0.88 & 0.81, 0.96 & 0.003 & 0.87 & 0.80, 0.95 & 0.002 \\ \hline LAM, mm & 0.86 & 0.70, 1.07 & 0.169 & & & \\ \hline UWT, mm & 0.89 & 0.71, 1.11 & 0.296 & & & \\ \hline ASM, mm & 0.82 & 0.59, 1.15 & 0.259 & & & \\ \hline OIM, mm & 0.95 & 0.87, 1.04 & 0.248 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} BMI, body mass index; PSA, prostate-specific antigen; TURP, transurethral resection of the prostate; ISUP, International Society of Urological Pathology; PV, prostate volume; MUL, membranous urethral length; LAM, levator ani muscle; UWT, urethra wall thickness; ASM, anal sphincter muscle; OIM, obturator internal muscle.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Univariable and multivariable analysis for recovery from PPI within 3 months. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Title 1** & **Sensitivity** & **Specificity** & **Accuracy** & **AUC** & _p_**-Value \({}^{*}\)** \\ \hline  & KNN & 72.5\% \(\pm\) 0.13 & 63.0\% \(\pm\) 0.17 & 68.3\% \(\pm\) 0.10 & 0.73 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 0.3 \\  & DT & 76.9\% \(\pm\) 0.09 & 64.0\% \(\pm\) 0.12 & 71.0\% \(\pm\) 0.05 & 0.73 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 0.497 \\ Internal validation cohort & SVM & 72.6\% \(\pm\) 0.06 & 57.7\% \(\pm\) 0.11 & 65.9\% \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.72 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.457 \\  & RF & 79.0\% \(\pm\) 0.10 & 68.4\% \(\pm\) 0.11 & 74.2\% \(\pm\) 0.08 & 0.80 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 0.552 \\  & LR & 79.3\% \(\pm\) 0.11 & 49.1\% \(\pm\) 0.23 & 65.7\% \(\pm\) 0.05 & 0.63 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.25 \\ \hline  & KNN & 62.4\% \(\pm\) 0.15 & 50.2\% \(\pm\) 0.16 & 56.1\% \(\pm\) 0.08 & 0.60 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 0.358 \\  & DT & 66.7\% \(\pm\) 0.13 & 49.4\% \(\pm\) 0.16 & 58.4\% \(\pm\) 0.07 & 0.61 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 0.323 \\ External validation cohort & SVM & 68.8\% \(\pm\) 0.12 & 51.3\% \(\pm\) 0.15 & 60.2\% \(\pm\) 0.07 & 0.65 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 0.394 \\  & RF & 65.1\% \(\pm\) 0.11 & 53.6\% \(\pm\) 0.14 & 59.5\% \(\pm\) 0.07 & 0.61 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 0.464 \\  & LR & 71.7\% \(\pm\) 0.15 & 40.0\% \(\pm\) 0.22 & 56.5\% \(\pm\) 0.07 & 0.59 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 0.339 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Data values are presented as a mean \(\pm\) standard deviation. \({}^{*}\)_p_-value for chi-squared test between predicted probability and actual proportion of recovery from PPI at 3 months.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Diagnostic performance of each models. Figure 2: _Cont._