Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38404754›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2024

Deep learning performance on MRI prostate gland segmentation: evaluation of two commercially available algorithms compared with an expert radiologist.

Erik Thimansson, Erik Baubeta, Jonatan Engman, Anders Bjartell, Sophia Zackrisson

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Erik ThimanssonLund University, Department of Translational Medicine, Diagnostic Radiology, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4663-8520
Erik BaubetaLund University, Department of Translational Medicine, Diagnostic Radiology, Malmö, Sweden.
Jonatan EngmanLund University, Department of Translational Medicine, Diagnostic Radiology, Malmö, Sweden.
Anders BjartellLund University, Department of Translational Medicine, Urology, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5761-3786
Sophia ZackrissonLund University, Department of Translational Medicine, Diagnostic Radiology, Malmö, Sweden.
Lund University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Accurate whole-gland prostate segmentation is crucial for successful ultrasound-MRI fusion biopsy, focal cancer treatment, and radiation therapy techniques. Commercially available artificial intelligence (AI) models, using deep learning algorithms (DLAs) for prostate gland segmentation, are rapidly increasing in numbers. Typically, their performance in a true clinical context is scarcely examined or published. We used a heterogenous clinical MRI dataset in this study aiming to contribute to validation of AI-models. Approach: We included 123 patients in this retrospective multicenter (7 hospitals), multiscanner (8 scanners, 2 vendors, 1.5T and 3T) study comparing prostate contour assessment by 2 commercially available Food and Drug Association (FDA)-cleared and CE-marked algorithms (DLA1 and DLA2) using an expert radiologist's manual contours as a reference standard (RSexp) in this clinical heterogeneous MRI dataset. No in-house training of the DLAs was performed before testing. Several methods for comparing segmentation overlap were used, the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) being the most important. Results: The DSC mean and standard deviation for DLA1 versus the radiologist reference standard (RSexp) was Conclusions: Two commercially available DL algorithms (FDA-cleared and CE-marked) can perform accurate whole-gland prostate segmentation on a par with expert radiologist manual planimetry on a real-world clinical dataset. Implementing AI models in the clinical routine may free up time that can be better invested in complex work tasks, adding more patient value.

Indexed as

biopsydeep learningmagnetic resonance imagingprostate neoplasmsprostate-specific antigenradiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID38404754
PMCPMC10882278
OpenAlexW4392051412

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.