Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37657758›Full record

ArticleGastroenterology2023

Automated Artificial Intelligence Model Trained on a Large Data Set Can Detect Pancreas Cancer on Diagnostic Computed Tomography Scans As Well As Visually Occult Preinvasive Cancer on Prediagnostic Computed Tomography Scans.

Panagiotis Korfiatis, Garima Suman, Nandakumar G Patnam, Kamaxi H Trivedi, Aashna Karbhari, Sovanlal Mukherjee, Cole Cook, Jason R Klug, Anurima Patra, Hala Khasawneh and 8 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gastroenterology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
13.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Artificial Intelligence in Pancreatic Imaging: A Systematic Review.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025
    Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  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

18 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Panagiotis KorfiatisDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Garima SumanDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Nandakumar G PatnamDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Kamaxi H TrivediDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Aashna KarbhariDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Sovanlal MukherjeeDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Cole CookDivision of Medical Imaging Technology Services, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Jason R KlugDivision of Medical Imaging Technology Services, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Anurima PatraDepartment of Radiology, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata, India.
Hala KhasawnehDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Naveen RajamohanDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Joel G FletcherDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Mark J TrutyDepartment of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Shounak MajumderDepartment of Gastroenterology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Candice W BolanDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida.
Kumar SandrasegaranDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Suresh T ChariDepartment of Gastroenterology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Ajit H GoenkaDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Electronic address: goenka.ajit@mayo.edu.
Mayo Clinic · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · USJacksonville College · USTata Medical Center · IN

Funding

Optimizing Pancreatic Cancer Management with Next Generation Imaging and Liquid BiopsyR01CA256969 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Eric Collisson, Ajit Harishkumar Goenka · 2021 to 2026
$3.1M
Quantitative In Vivo 68Ga-Fibroblast-Activation-Protein-Inhibitors (FAPI)-46 PET Imaging of Cancer-Associated Fibroblasts (CAFs) in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDA)R01CA272628 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI GOENKA, AJIT HARISHKUMAR · 2022 to 2025
$2.5M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA256969NCI NIH HHS R01 CA272628
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND &

aimsThe aims of our case-control study were (1) to develop an automated 3-dimensional (3D) Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) for detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) on diagnostic computed tomography scans (CTs), (2) evaluate its generalizability on multi-institutional public data sets, (3) its utility as a potential screening tool using a simulated cohort with high pretest probability, and (4) its ability to detect visually occult preinvasive cancer on prediagnostic CTs.

methodsA 3D-CNN classification system was trained using algorithmically generated bounding boxes and pancreatic masks on a curated data set of 696 portal phase diagnostic CTs with PDA and 1080 control images with a nonneoplastic pancreas. The model was evaluated on (1) an intramural hold-out test subset (409 CTs with PDA, 829 controls); (2) a simulated cohort with a case-control distribution that matched the risk of PDA in glycemically defined new-onset diabetes, and Enriching New-Onset Diabetes for Pancreatic Cancer score ≥3; (3) multi-institutional public data sets (194 CTs with PDA, 80 controls), and (4) a cohort of 100 prediagnostic CTs (i.e., CTs incidentally acquired 3-36 months before clinical diagnosis of PDA) without a focal mass, and 134 controls.

resultsOf the CTs in the intramural test subset, 798 (64%) were from other hospitals. The model correctly classified 360 CTs (88%) with PDA and 783 control CTs (94%), with a mean accuracy 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91-0.94), area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.96-0.98), sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.91), and specificity of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.93-0.96). Activation areas on heat maps overlapped with the tumor in 350 of 360 CTs (97%). Performance was high across tumor stages (sensitivity of 0.80, 0.87, 0.95, and 1.0 on T1 through T4 stages, respectively), comparable for hypodense vs isodense tumors (sensitivity: 0.90 vs 0.82), different age, sex, CT slice thicknesses, and vendors (all P > .05), and generalizable on both the simulated cohort (accuracy, 0.95 [95% 0.94-0.95]; AUROC curve, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.94-0.99]) and public data sets (accuracy, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.82-0.90]; AUROC curve, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.86-0.95]). Despite being exclusively trained on diagnostic CTs with larger tumors, the model could detect occult PDA on prediagnostic CTs (accuracy, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.79-0.88]; AUROC curve, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.86-0.94]; sensitivity, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.67-0.84]; and specificity, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.85-0.95]) at a median 475 days (range, 93-1082 days) before clinical diagnosis.

conclusionsThis automated artificial intelligence model trained on a large and diverse data set shows high accuracy and generalizable performance for detection of PDA on diagnostic CTs as well as for visually occult PDA on prediagnostic CTs. Prospective validation with blood-based biomarkers is warranted to assess the potential for early detection of sporadic PDA in high-risk individuals.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalDiabetes MellitusPancreatic NeoplasmsArtificial IntelligenceCase-Control StudiesEarly Detection of CancerHumansRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedArtificial IntelligenceBiomarkersComputed TomographyPancreasPancreatic Ductal Carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID37657758
PMCPMC10843414
OpenAlexW4386295956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.