Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35976392›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2022

Fully automatic prognostic biomarker extraction from metastatic prostate lesion segmentations in whole-body [

Jake Kendrick, Roslyn J Francis, Ghulam Mubashar Hassan, Pejman Rowshanfarzad, Jeremy S L Ong, Martin A Ebert

Open access · hybridAbstract read
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 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Deep-learning-based software versus experienced nuclear medicine physician to read [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Article
  8. Artificial intelligence in prostate cancer.Chinese medical journal · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. A convolutional neural network-based system for fully automatic segmentation of whole-body [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024
    Article
  15. Clinical Evaluation of Deep Learning for Tumor Delineation onJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2024
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Quantitative [Scientific reports · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jake KendrickSchool of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia. jake.kendrick@research.uwa.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6524-539X
Roslyn J FrancisMedical School, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6256-1351
Ghulam Mubashar HassanSchool of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6636-8807
Pejman RowshanfarzadSchool of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8306-7742
Jeremy S L OngDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, WA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5101-6107
Martin A EbertSchool of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6875-0719
The University of Western Australia · AUFiona Stanley Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to develop and assess an automated segmentation framework based on deep learning for metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) lesions in whole-body [

methodsThree hundred thirty-seven [

resultsAt the patient level, the accuracy, sensitivity, and PPV were all > 90%, with the best metric being the PPV (97.2%). PPV and sensitivity at the lesion level were 88.2% and 73.0%, respectively. DSC and PPV measured at the voxel level performed within measured inter-observer variability (DSC, median = 50.7% vs. second observer = 32%, p = 0.012; PPV, median = 64.9% vs. second observer = 25.7%, p < 0.005). Kaplan-Meier analysis of TLV

conclusionThe fully automated assessment of whole-body [

trial registrationThis study was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12615000608561) on 11 June 2015.

Indexed as

Gallium RadioisotopesProstatic NeoplasmsAustraliaBiomarkersEdetic AcidGallium IsotopesHumansMalePositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyPrognosisProstateBiomarkersEdetic Acidgallium 68 PSMA-11Gallium IsotopesGallium RadioisotopesDeep learningPET/CTPrognostic biomarkersProstate cancerPSMASegmentation

Identifiers

PMID35976392
PMCPMC9668788
OpenAlexW4292080822

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.