ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2021
Performance of Deep Learning and Genitourinary Radiologists in Detection of Prostate Cancer Using 3-T Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-world assessment of a deep learning neural network algorithm for prostate cancer detection in MRI using true de novo data.Medical physics · 2026Article
- AI in Prostate MRI: A Task-Based Review.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2025Review
- Improving Early Prostate Cancer Detection Through Artificial Intelligence: Evidence from a Systematic Review.Cancers · 2025Review
- Evaluation of a deep learning prostate cancer detection system on biparametric MRI against radiological reading.European radiology · 2025Article
- Effective reduction of unnecessary biopsies through a deep-learning-assisted aggressive prostate cancer detector.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Integration of magnetic resonance imaging and deep learning for prostate cancer detection: a systematic review.American journal of clinical and experimental urology · 2025Review
- Evaluation of a Cascaded Deep Learning-based Algorithm for Prostate Lesion Detection at Biparametric MRI.Radiology · 2024Article
- Advantage of whole-mount histopathology in prostate cancer: current applications and future prospects.BMC cancer · 2024Review
- AtPCa-Net: anatomical-aware prostate cancer detection network on multi-parametric MRI.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Development and Validation of a Deep Learning Model to Reduce the Interference of Rectal Artifacts in MRI-based Prostate Cancer Diagnosis.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2024Article
- Using an artificial intelligence model to detect and localize visible clinically significant prostate cancer in prostate magnetic resonance imaging: a multicenter external validation study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Semisupervised Learning with Report-guided Pseudo Labels for Deep Learning-based Prostate Cancer Detection Using Biparametric MRI.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2023Article
- Review
- Automated deep-learning system in the assessment of MRI-visible prostate cancer: comparison of advanced zoomed diffusion-weighted imaging and conventional technique.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2023Article
- Research progress on deep learning in magnetic resonance imaging-based diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer: a review on the current status and perspectives.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- A novel approach for automatic segmentation of prostate and its lesion regions on magnetic resonance imaging.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Comparative Performance of Deep Learning and Radiologists for the Diagnosis and Localization of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer at MRI: A Systematic Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Adversarial training for prostate cancer classification using magnetic resonance imaging.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- Comparative performance of fully-automated and semi-automated artificial intelligence methods for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer on MRI: a systematic review.Insights into imaging · 2022Review
- Current Value of Biparametric Prostate MRI with Machine-Learning or Deep-Learning in the Detection, Grading, and Characterization of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSeveral deep learning-based techniques have been developed for prostate cancer (PCa) detection using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), but few of them have been rigorously evaluated relative to radiologists' performance or whole-mount histopathology (WMHP). PURPOSE: To compare the performance of a previously proposed deep learning algorithm, FocalNet, and expert radiologists in the detection of PCa on mpMRI with WMHP as the reference. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective, single-center study. SUBJECTS: A total of 553 patients (development cohort: 427 patients; evaluation cohort: 126 patients) who underwent 3-T mpMRI prior to radical prostatectomy from October 2010 to February 2018. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3-T, T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging. ASSESSMENT: FocalNet was trained on the development cohort to predict PCa locations by detection points, with a confidence value for each point, on the evaluation cohort. Four fellowship-trained genitourinary (GU) radiologists independently evaluated the evaluation cohort to detect suspicious PCa foci, annotate detection point locations, and assign a five-point suspicion score (1: least suspicious, 5: most suspicious) for each annotated detection point. The PCa detection performance of FocalNet and radiologists were evaluated by the lesion detection sensitivity vs. the number of false-positive detections at different thresholds on suspicion scores. Clinically significant lesions: Gleason Group (GG) ≥ 2 or pathological size ≥ 10 mm. Index lesions: the highest GG and the largest pathological size (secondary). STATISTICAL TESTS: Bootstrap hypothesis test for the detection sensitivity between radiologists and FocalNet.
resultsFor the overall differential detection sensitivity, FocalNet was 5.1% and 4.7% below the radiologists for clinically significant and index lesions, respectively; however, the differences were not statistically significant (P = 0.413 and P = 0.282, respectively). DATA
conclusionFocalNet achieved slightly lower but not statistically significant PCa detection performance compared with GU radiologists. Compared with radiologists, FocalNet demonstrated similar detection performance for a highly sensitive setting (suspicion score ≥ 1) or a highly specific setting (suspicion score = 5), while lower performance in between. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2.
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.