ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Comparative Performance of Deep Learning and Radiologists for the Diagnosis and Localization of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer at MRI: A Systematic Review.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence Performance in Image-Based Cancer Identification: Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Autonomous AI in prostate cancer: the road ahead towards clinical implementation.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Comparison of Artificial Intelligence and Radiologists in MRI-Based Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: A Meta-Analysis of Accuracy and Effectiveness.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Adherence to the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM): an umbrella review with a comprehensive two-level analysis.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Article
- What Is Fair? Defining Fairness in Machine Learning for Health.Statistics in medicine · 2025Review
- AI-powered prostate cancer detection: a multi-centre, multi-scanner validation study.European radiology · 2025Article
- Deep-learning reconstruction of the prostate improves image quality and acquisition time in T2-weighted imaging.Nagoya journal of medical science · 2025Article
- Automatic sequence identification in multicentric prostate multiparametric MRI datasets for clinical machine-learning.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Patient perspectives on the use of artificial intelligence in prostate cancer diagnosis on MRI.European radiology · 2025Article
- Mixed Supervision of Histopathology Improves Prostate Cancer Classification From MRI.IEEE transactions on medical imaging · 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
- High-grade prostate cancer demonstrates preferential growth in the cranio-caudal axis and provides discrimination of disease grade in an MRI parametric model.The British journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Diffusion kurtosis imaging and standard diffusion imaging in the magnetic resonance imaging assessment of prostate cancer.Gland surgery · 2023Review
- Explainable Automated TI-RADS Evaluation of Thyroid Nodules.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Tumor Area Highlighting Using T2WI, ADC Map, and DWI Sequence Fusion on bpMRI Images for Better Prostate Cancer Diagnosis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDeep learning (DL)-based models have demonstrated an ability to automatically diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) on MRI scans and are regularly reported to approach expert performance. The aim of this work was to systematically review the literature comparing deep learning (DL) systems to radiologists in order to evaluate the comparative performance of current state-of-the-art deep learning models and radiologists.
methodsThis systematic review was conducted in accordance with the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Studies investigating DL models for diagnosing clinically significant (cs) PCa on MRI were included. The quality and risk of bias of each study were assessed using the checklist for AI in medical imaging (CLAIM) and QUADAS-2, respectively. Patient level and lesion-based diagnostic performance were separately evaluated by comparing the sensitivity achieved by DL and radiologists at an identical specificity and the false positives per patient, respectively.
resultsThe final selection consisted of eight studies with a combined 7337 patients. The median study quality with CLAIM was 74.1% (IQR: 70.6-77.6). DL achieved an identical patient-level performance to the radiologists for PI-RADS ≥ 3 (both 97.7%, SD = 2.1%). DL had a lower sensitivity for PI-RADS ≥ 4 (84.2% vs. 88.8%,
conclusionsDL models for the diagnosis of csPCa on MRI appear to approach the performance of experts but currently have a lower sensitivity compared to experienced radiologists. There is a need for studies with larger datasets and for validation on external data.
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.