Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34363089›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2022

Diagnostic performance of deep learning models for detecting bone metastasis on whole-body bone scan in prostate cancer.

Sangwon Han, Jungsu S Oh, Jong Jin Lee

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Imaging signs and the qualitative diagnosis of solitary rib lesions usingQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Deep learning based identification of bone scintigraphies containing metastatic bone disease foci.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2023
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sangwon HanDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Korea.
Jungsu S OhDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Korea. jungsu.oh@gmail.com.
Jong Jin LeeDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Korea. jongjin@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3184-2409
Ulsan College · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe evaluated the performance of deep learning classifiers for bone scans of prostate cancer patients.

methodsA total of 9113 consecutive bone scans (5342 prostate cancer patients) were initially evaluated. Bone scans were labeled as positive/negative for bone metastasis using clinical reports and image review for ground truth diagnosis. Two different 2D convolutional neural network (CNN) architectures were proposed: (1) whole body-based (WB) and (2) tandem architectures integrating whole body and local patches, here named as "global-local unified emphasis" (GLUE). Both models were trained using abundant (72%:8%:20% for training:validation:test sets) and limited training data (10%:40%:50%). The allocation of test sets was rotated across all images: therefore, fivefold and twofold cross-validation test results were available for abundant and limited settings, respectively.

resultsA total of 2991 positive and 6142 negative bone scans were used as input. For the abundant training setting, the receiver operating characteristics curves of both the GLUE and WB models indicated excellent diagnostic ability in terms of the area under the curve (GLUE: 0.936-0.955, WB: 0.933-0.957, P > 0.05 in four of the fivefold tests). The overall accuracies of the GLUE and WB models were 0.900 and 0.889, respectively. With the limited training setting, the GLUE models showed significantly higher AUCs than the WB models (0.894-0.908 vs. 0.870-0.877, P < 0.0001).

conclusionOur 2D-CNN models accurately classified bone scans of prostate cancer patients. While both showed excellent performance with the abundant dataset, the GLUE model showed higher performance than the WB model in the limited data setting.

Indexed as

Bone NeoplasmsDeep LearningProstatic NeoplasmsHumansMaleTomography, X-Ray ComputedWhole Body ImagingBone scanComputerComputer-assistedDeep learningImage processingNeural networksProstatic neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID34363089
OpenAlexW3187338444

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.