ReviewDer Radiologe2020
[Artificial intelligence and radiomics in MRI-based prostate diagnostics].
Review in Der Radiologe, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reproducibility of natural-language-driven statistical workflows compared with conventional software for diagnostic metrics in prostate cancer research.Investigative and clinical urology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence techniques in liver cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Future of prostate imaging: Artificial intelligence in assessing prostatic magnetic resonance imaging.World journal of radiology · 2023Review
- Enhanced CT-based radiomics predicts pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: a two-center study.Insights into imaging · 2022Article
- Texture analysis based on PI-RADS 4/5-scored magnetic resonance images combined with machine learning to distinguish benign lesions from prostate cancer.Translational cancer research · 2022Article
- Artificial Intelligence Evidence-Based Current Status and Potential for Lower Limb Vascular Management.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
clinical/methodical issueIn view of the diagnostic complexity and the large number of examinations, modern radiology is challenged to identify clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) with high sensitivity and specificity. Meanwhile overdiagnosis and overtreatment of clinically nonsignificant carcinomas need to be avoided. STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL
methodsIncreasingly, international guidelines recommend multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) as first-line investigation in patients with suspected PCa. METHODICAL INNOVATIONS: Image interpretation according to the PI-RADS criteria is limited by interobserver variability. Thus, rapid developments in the field of automated image analysis tools, including radiomics and artificial intelligence (AI; machine learning, deep learning), give hope for further improvement in patient care. PERFORMANCE: AI focuses on the automated detection and classification of PCa, but it also attempts to stratify tumor aggressiveness according to the Gleason score. Recent studies present good to very good results in radiomics or AI-supported mpMRI diagnosis. Nevertheless, these systems are not widely used in clinical practice. ACHIEVEMENTS AND PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: In order to apply these innovative technologies, a growing awareness for the need of structured data acquisition, development of robust systems and an increased acceptance of AI as diagnostic support are needed. If AI overcomes these obstacles, it may play a key role in the quantitative and reproducible image-based diagnosis of ever-increasing prostate MRI examination volumes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.