Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36294928›Full record

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.

Christian Roest, Stefan J Fransen, Thomas C Kwee, Derya Yakar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

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

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

4 authors.

Christian RoestMedical Imaging Center, Departments of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3575-4465
Stefan J FransenMedical Imaging Center, Departments of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5454-5052
Thomas C KweeMedical Imaging Center, Departments of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.
Derya YakarMedical Imaging Center, Departments of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4920-9441

Funding

HealthHolland NASiemens Healthineers NA
6 · The paper itself

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

deep learningmagnetic resonance imagingprostatic neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID36294928
PMCPMC9605624

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.