ArticleCancers2021
Challenges in the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis from Multiparametric Imaging Data.
Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Present status of prostate cancer diagnosis, limitations, challenges, and future endeavors.Annals of medicine · 2026Review
- Reproducibility of natural-language-driven statistical workflows compared with conventional software for diagnostic metrics in prostate cancer research.Investigative and clinical urology · 2026Article
- Multimodal artificial intelligence in urologic precision oncology: from algorithm to translational medicine (a systemized narrative review).Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Investigating key genes and molecular mechanisms of prostate cancer and coronary heart disease through transcriptomics and experimental validation.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- Next-Generation Advances in Prostate Cancer Imaging and Artificial Intelligence Applications.Journal of imaging · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence Across the Prostate Cancer Pathway: Screening, Imaging, Pathology, and Biomarkers.Cureus · 2025Review
- Deep Learning Techniques for Prostate Cancer Analysis and Detection: Survey of the State of the Art.Journal of imaging · 2025Review
- Application of Photoactive Compounds in Cancer Theranostics: Review on Recent Trends from Photoactive Chemistry to Artificial Intelligence.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- A Narrative Review of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Breast, Lung, and Prostate Cancer.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Article
- Advanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Techniques: Technical Principles and Applications in Nanomedicine.Cancers · 2022Review
- Towards Interpretable Deep Learning: A Feature Selection Framework for Prognostics and Health Management Using Deep Neural Networks.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many efforts have been carried out for the standardization of multiparametric Magnetic Resonance (mp-MR) images evaluation to detect Prostate Cancer (PCa), and specifically to differentiate levels of aggressiveness, a crucial aspect for clinical decision-making. Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) has contributed noteworthily to this aim. Nevertheless, as pointed out by the European Association of Urology (EAU 2020), the PI-RADS still has limitations mainly due to the moderate inter-reader reproducibility of mp-MRI. In recent years, many aspects in the diagnosis of cancer have taken advantage of the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) such as detection, segmentation of organs and/or lesions, and characterization. Here a focus on AI as a potentially important tool for the aim of standardization and reproducibility in the characterization of PCa by mp-MRI is reported. AI includes methods such as Machine Learning and Deep learning techniques that have shown to be successful in classifying mp-MR images, with similar performances obtained by radiologists. Nevertheless, they perform differently depending on the acquisition system and protocol used. Besides, these methods need a large number of samples that cover most of the variability of the lesion aspect and zone to avoid overfitting. The use of publicly available datasets could improve AI performance to achieve a higher level of generalizability, exploiting large numbers of cases and a big range of variability in the images. Here we explore the promise and the advantages, as well as emphasizing the pitfall and the warnings, outlined in some recent studies that attempted to classify clinically significant PCa and indolent lesions using AI methods. Specifically, we focus on the overfitting issue due to the scarcity of data and the lack of standardization and reproducibility in every step of the mp-MR image acquisition and the classifier implementation. In the end, we point out that a solution can be found in the use of publicly available datasets, whose usage has already been promoted by some important initiatives. Our future perspective is that AI models may become reliable tools for clinicians in PCa diagnosis, reducing inter-observer variability and evaluation time.
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.