Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31304394›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2019

Development and validation of a deep learning algorithm for improving Gleason scoring of prostate cancer.

Kunal Nagpal, Davis Foote, Yun Liu, Po-Hsuan Cameron Chen, Ellery Wulczyn, Fraser Tan, Niels Olson, Jenny L Smith, Arash Mohtashamian, James H Wren and 9 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 191 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
191citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

191 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Immune Spatial Organization Predicts Distant Metastasis Risk in Aggressive Localized Prostate Cancer.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Kunal Nagpal1Google AI Healthcare, Google, Mountain View, CA USA.
Davis Foote1Google AI Healthcare, Google, Mountain View, CA USA.
Yun Liu1Google AI Healthcare, Google, Mountain View, CA USA.
Po-Hsuan Cameron Chen1Google AI Healthcare, Google, Mountain View, CA USA.
Ellery Wulczyn1Google AI Healthcare, Google, Mountain View, CA USA.
Fraser Tan1Google AI Healthcare, Google, Mountain View, CA USA.
Niels Olson2Laboratory Department, Naval Medical Center San Diego, San Diego, CA USA.
Jenny L Smith2Laboratory Department, Naval Medical Center San Diego, San Diego, CA USA.
Arash Mohtashamian2Laboratory Department, Naval Medical Center San Diego, San Diego, CA USA.
James H Wren3Henry M. Jackson Foundation, Bethesda, MD USA.
Greg S Corrado1Google AI Healthcare, Google, Mountain View, CA USA.
Robert MacDonald1Google AI Healthcare, Google, Mountain View, CA USA.
Lily H Peng1Google AI Healthcare, Google, Mountain View, CA USA.
Mahul B Amin4Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN USA.
Andrew J Evans5Department of Pathology, Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada.
Ankur R Sangoi6Department of Pathology, El Camino Hospital, Mountain View, CA USA.
Craig H Mermel1Google AI Healthcare, Google, Mountain View, CA USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0816-3395
Jason D Hipp1Google AI Healthcare, Google, Mountain View, CA USA.
Martin C StumpePresent Address: AI and Data Science, Tempus Labs Inc, Chicago, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For prostate cancer patients, the Gleason score is one of the most important prognostic factors, potentially determining treatment independent of the stage. However, Gleason scoring is based on subjective microscopic examination of tumor morphology and suffers from poor reproducibility. Here we present a deep learning system (DLS) for Gleason scoring whole-slide images of prostatectomies. Our system was developed using 112 million pathologist-annotated image patches from 1226 slides, and evaluated on an independent validation dataset of 331 slides. Compared to a reference standard provided by genitourinary pathology experts, the mean accuracy among 29 general pathologists was 0.61 on the validation set. The DLS achieved a significantly higher diagnostic accuracy of 0.70 (

Indexed as

Prostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID31304394
PMCPMC6555810

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.