Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26578786›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2015

Automatic classification of prostate cancer Gleason scores from multiparametric magnetic resonance images.

Duc Fehr, Harini Veeraraghavan, Andreas Wibmer, Tatsuo Gondo, Kazuhiro Matsumoto, Herbert Alberto Vargas, Evis Sala, Hedvig Hricak, Joseph O Deasy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 178 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
178citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

178 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Prostate Cancer Classification Using Quantum Machine Learning on Multi-parametric MRI.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2026
    Article
  16. Multimodality and temporal analysis of cervical cancer treatment response.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

118 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Duc FehrDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY;
Harini VeeraraghavanDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; veerarah@mskcc.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4054-5529
Andreas WibmerDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY;
Tatsuo GondoDepartment of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Kazuhiro MatsumotoDepartment of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Herbert Alberto VargasDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY;
Evis SalaDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY;
Hedvig HricakDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY;
Joseph O DeasyDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY;

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Noninvasive, radiological image-based detection and stratification of Gleason patterns can impact clinical outcomes, treatment selection, and the determination of disease status at diagnosis without subjecting patients to surgical biopsies. We present machine learning-based automatic classification of prostate cancer aggressiveness by combining apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and T2-weighted (T2-w) MRI-based texture features. Our approach achieved reasonably accurate classification of Gleason scores (GS) 6(3 + 3) vs. ≥7 and 7(3 + 4) vs. 7(4 + 3) despite the presence of highly unbalanced samples by using two different sample augmentation techniques followed by feature selection-based classification. Our method distinguished between GS 6(3 + 3) and ≥7 cancers with 93% accuracy for cancers occurring in both peripheral (PZ) and transition (TZ) zones and 92% for cancers occurring in the PZ alone. Our approach distinguished the GS 7(3 + 4) from GS 7(4 + 3) with 92% accuracy for cancers occurring in both the PZ and TZ and with 93% for cancers occurring in the PZ alone. In comparison, a classifier using only the ADC mean achieved a top accuracy of 58% for distinguishing GS 6(3 + 3) vs. GS ≥7 for cancers occurring in PZ and TZ and 63% for cancers occurring in PZ alone. The same classifier achieved an accuracy of 59% for distinguishing GS 7(3 + 4) from GS 7(4 + 3) occurring in the PZ and TZ and 60% for cancers occurring in PZ alone. Separate analysis of the cancers occurring in TZ alone was not performed owing to the limited number of samples. Our results suggest that texture features derived from ADC and T2-w MRI together with sample augmentation can help to obtain reasonably accurate classification of Gleason patterns.

Indexed as

Machine LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMalePredictive Value of TestsProstatic NeoplasmsRadiographyGleason score classificationlearning from unbalanced datamultiparametric MRIPCa Gleason (3+4) vs. (4+3) cancersPCa Gleason 6 vs. ≥7

Identifiers

PMID26578786
PMCPMC4655555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.