Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38223104›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024

Using an artificial intelligence model to detect and localize visible clinically significant prostate cancer in prostate magnetic resonance imaging: a multicenter external validation study.

Zhaonan Sun, Kexin Wang, Chenchao Wu, Yuntian Chen, Zixuan Kong, Lilan She, Bin Song, Ning Luo, Pengsheng Wu, Xiangpeng Wang and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2024. 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. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment in Prostate Cancer.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

12 authors.

Zhaonan SunDepartment of Radiology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Kexin WangSchool of Basic Medical Sciences, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Chenchao WuDepartment of Radiology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
Yuntian ChenDepartment of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Zixuan KongDepartment of Radiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China.
Lilan SheDepartment of Radiology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
Bin SongDepartment of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Ning LuoDepartment of Radiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China.
Pengsheng WuBeijing Smart Tree Medical Technology Co. Ltd., Beijing, China.
Xiangpeng WangBeijing Smart Tree Medical Technology Co. Ltd., Beijing, China.
Xiaodong ZhangDepartment of Radiology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xiaoying WangDepartment of Radiology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: An increasing number of patients with suspected clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) are undergoing prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). The role of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in interpreting prostate mpMRI needs to be tested with multicenter external data. This study aimed to investigate the diagnostic efficacy of an AI model in detecting and localizing visible csPCa on mpMRI a multicenter external data set. Methods: The data of 2,105 patients suspected of having prostate cancer from four hospitals were retrospectively collected to develop an AI model to detect and localize suspicious csPCa. The lesions were annotated based on pathology records by two radiologists. Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values were used as the input for the three-dimensional U-Net framework. Subsequently, the model was validated using an external data set comprising the data of 557 patients from three hospitals. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were employed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of the model. Results: At the lesion level, the model had a sensitivity of 0.654. At the overall sextant level, the model had a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 0.846, 0.884, and 0.874, respectively. At the patient level, the model had a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 0.943, 0.776, and 0.849, respectively. The AI-predicted accuracy for the csPCa patients (231/245, 0.943) was significantly higher than that for the non-csPCa patients (242/312, 0.776) (P<0.001). The lesion number and tumor volume were greater in the correctly diagnosed patients than the incorrectly diagnosed patients (both P<0.001). Among the positive patients, those with lower average ADC values had a higher rate of correct diagnosis than those with higher average ADC values (P=0.01). Conclusions: The AI model exhibited acceptable accuracy in detecting and localizing visible csPCa at the patient and sextant levels. However, further improvements need to be made to enhance the sensitivity of the model at the lesion level.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence (AI)Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa)magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)

Identifiers

PMID38223104
PMCPMC10784077

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.