Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35366918›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2022

Explainable AI for CNN-based prostate tumor segmentation in multi-parametric MRI correlated to whole mount histopathology.

Deepa Darshini Gunashekar, Lars Bielak, Leonard Hägele, Benedict Oerther, Matthias Benndorf, Anca-L Grosu, Thomas Brox, Constantinos Zamboglou, Michael Bock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

9 authors.

Deepa Darshini GunashekarDepartment of Radiology, Medical Physics, Medical Center University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. deepa.darshini.gunashekar@uniklinik-freiburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8906-8850
Lars BielakDepartment of Radiology, Medical Physics, Medical Center University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5728-2323
Leonard HägeleDepartment of Radiology, Medical Physics, Medical Center University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Benedict OertherDepartment of Radiology, Medical Center University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4267-3601
Matthias BenndorfDepartment of Radiology, Medical Center University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0407-1266
Anca-L GrosuGerman Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2255-2255
Thomas BroxDepartment of Computer Science, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6282-8861
Constantinos ZamboglouGerman Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7849-7550
Michael BockDepartment of Radiology, Medical Physics, Medical Center University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9720-3506

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft(DFG) BO 3025/14-1Klaus Tschira Stiftung 00.014.2019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Automatic prostate tumor segmentation is often unable to identify the lesion even if multi-parametric MRI data is used as input, and the segmentation output is difficult to verify due to the lack of clinically established ground truth images. In this work we use an explainable deep learning model to interpret the predictions of a convolutional neural network (CNN) for prostate tumor segmentation. The CNN uses a U-Net architecture which was trained on multi-parametric MRI data from 122 patients to automatically segment the prostate gland and prostate tumor lesions. In addition, co-registered ground truth data from whole mount histopathology images were available in 15 patients that were used as a test set during CNN testing. To be able to interpret the segmentation results of the CNN, heat maps were generated using the Gradient Weighted Class Activation Map (Grad-CAM) method. The CNN achieved a mean Dice Sorensen Coefficient 0.62 and 0.31 for the prostate gland and the tumor lesions -with the radiologist drawn ground truth and 0.32 with whole-mount histology ground truth for tumor lesions. Dice Sorensen Coefficient between CNN predictions and manual segmentations from MRI and histology data were not significantly different. In the prostate the Grad-CAM heat maps could differentiate between tumor and healthy prostate tissue, which indicates that the image information in the tumor was essential for the CNN segmentation.

Indexed as

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNeural Networks, ComputerAutomatic prostate tumor segmentationConvolutional neural networkHistological validation

Identifiers

PMID35366918
PMCPMC8976981

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.