Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32961895›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2020

A Quality Control System for Automated Prostate Segmentation on T2-Weighted MRI.

Mohammed R S Sunoqrot, Kirsten M Selnæs, Elise Sandsmark, Gabriel A Nketiah, Olmo Zavala-Romero, Radka Stoyanova, Tone F Bathen, Mattijs Elschot

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Prostate Cancer Radiogenomics-From Imaging to Molecular Characterization.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Mohammed R S SunoqrotDepartment of Circulation and Medical Imaging, NTNU-Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7030 Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-9239-1683
Kirsten M SelnæsDepartment of Circulation and Medical Imaging, NTNU-Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7030 Trondheim, Norway.
Elise SandsmarkDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, 7030 Trondheim, Norway.
Gabriel A NketiahDepartment of Circulation and Medical Imaging, NTNU-Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7030 Trondheim, Norway.
Olmo Zavala-RomeroDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL 33136, USA.
Radka StoyanovaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL 33136, USA.
Tone F BathenDepartment of Circulation and Medical Imaging, NTNU-Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7030 Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-8582-6965
Mattijs ElschotDepartment of Circulation and Medical Imaging, NTNU-Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7030 Trondheim, Norway.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology · NOFlorida State University · USSt Olav's University Hospital · NOUniversity of Miami · US

Funding

Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) Biotechnology 81770928The liaison Committee between the Central Norway Regional Health Authority and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology 90265300The liaison Committee between the Central Norway Regional Health Authority and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology 90368401The Research Council of Norway 295013
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computer-aided detection and diagnosis (CAD) systems have the potential to improve robustness and efficiency compared to traditional radiological reading of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Fully automated segmentation of the prostate is a crucial step of CAD for prostate cancer, but visual inspection is still required to detect poorly segmented cases. The aim of this work was therefore to establish a fully automated quality control (QC) system for prostate segmentation based on T2-weighted MRI. Four different deep learning-based segmentation methods were used to segment the prostate for 585 patients. First order, shape and textural radiomics features were extracted from the segmented prostate masks. A reference quality score (QS) was calculated for each automated segmentation in comparison to a manual segmentation. A least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) was trained and optimized on a randomly assigned training dataset (N = 1756, 439 cases from each segmentation method) to build a generalizable linear regression model based on the radiomics features that best estimated the reference QS. Subsequently, the model was used to estimate the QSs for an independent testing dataset (N = 584, 146 cases from each segmentation method). The mean ± standard deviation absolute error between the estimated and reference QSs was 5.47 ± 6.33 on a scale from 0 to 100. In addition, we found a strong correlation between the estimated and reference QSs (rho = 0.70). In conclusion, we developed an automated QC system that may be helpful for evaluating the quality of automated prostate segmentations.

Indexed as

computer-aided detection and diagnosisdeep learningmachine learningMRIprostatequality controlradiomicssegmentation

Identifiers

PMID32961895
PMCPMC7555425
OpenAlexW3087069033

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.