Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37357263›Full record

ReviewMilitary Medical Research2023

What benefit can be obtained from magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis with artificial intelligence in prostate cancer compared with clinical assessments?

Li-Tao Zhao, Zhen-Yu Liu, Wan-Fang Xie, Li-Zhi Shao, Jian Lu, Jie Tian, Jian-Gang Liu

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Military Medical Research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. AI in Prostate Cancer Screening & Diagnosis: A Registry-Based Study of ClinicalTrials.gov Trials.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Li-Tao Zhao *School of Engineering Medicine, Beihang University, Beijing, 100191, China.
Zhen-Yu Liu *CAS Key Laboratory of Molecular Imaging, Institute of Automation, Beijing, 100190, China.
Wan-Fang XieSchool of Engineering Medicine, Beihang University, Beijing, 100191, China.
Li-Zhi ShaoCAS Key Laboratory of Molecular Imaging, Institute of Automation, Beijing, 100190, China.
Jian LuDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Peking University, 100191, Beijing, China. lujian@bjmu.edu.cn.
Jie TianSchool of Engineering Medicine, Beihang University, Beijing, 100191, China. jie.tian@ia.ac.cn.
Jian-Gang LiuSchool of Engineering Medicine, Beihang University, Beijing, 100191, China. jgliu@buaa.edu.cn.
Shandong Institute of Automation · CNBeihang University · CNPeking University · CNWisdom Health (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present study aimed to explore the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) methodology based on magnetic resonance (MR) images to aid in the management of prostate cancer (PCa). To this end, we reviewed and summarized the studies comparing the diagnostic and predictive performance for PCa between AI and common clinical assessment methods based on MR images and/or clinical characteristics, thereby investigating whether AI methods are generally superior to common clinical assessment methods for the diagnosis and prediction fields of PCa. First, we found that, in the included studies of the present study, AI methods were generally equal to or better than the clinical assessment methods for the risk assessment of PCa, such as risk stratification of prostate lesions and the prediction of therapeutic outcomes or PCa progression. In particular, for the diagnosis of clinically significant PCa, the AI methods achieved a higher summary receiver operator characteristic curve (SROC-AUC) than that of the clinical assessment methods (0.87 vs. 0.82). For the prediction of adverse pathology, the AI methods also achieved a higher SROC-AUC than that of the clinical assessment methods (0.86 vs. 0.75). Second, as revealed by the radiomics quality score (RQS), the studies included in the present study presented a relatively high total average RQS of 15.2 (11.0-20.0). Further, the scores of the individual RQS elements implied that the AI models in these studies were constructed with relatively perfect and standard radiomics processes, but the exact generalizability and clinical practicality of the AI models should be further validated using higher levels of evidence, such as prospective studies and open-testing datasets.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceProstatic NeoplasmsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleProspective StudiesProstateAdverse pathologyArtificial intelligenceClinically significant prostate cancerMagnetic resonance imagingRadiomics quality score

Identifiers

PMID37357263
PMCPMC10291794
OpenAlexW4381988169

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.