ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024
Algorithms for classification of sequences and segmentation of prostate gland: an external validation study.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of the study was to externally validate two AI models for the classification of prostate mpMRI sequences and segmentation of the prostate gland on T2WI. MATERIALS AND
methodsMpMRI data from 719 patients were retrospectively collected from two hospitals, utilizing nine MR scanners from four different vendors, over the period from February 2018 to May 2022. Med3D deep learning pretrained architecture was used to perform image classification,UNet-3D was used to segment the prostate gland. The images were classified into one of nine image types by the mode. The segmentation model was validated using T2WI images. The accuracy of the segmentation was evaluated by measuring the DSC, VS,AHD.Finally,efficacy of the models was compared for different MR field strengths and sequences.
results20,551 image groups were obtained from 719 MR studies. The classification model accuracy is 99%, with a kappa of 0.932. The precision, recall, and F1 values for the nine image types had statistically significant differences, respectively (all P < 0.001). The accuracy for scanners 1.436 T, 1.5 T, and 3.0 T was 87%, 86%, and 98%, respectively (P < 0.001). For segmentation model, the median DSC was 0.942 to 0.955, the median VS was 0.974 to 0.982, and the median AHD was 5.55 to 6.49 mm,respectively.These values also had statistically significant differences for the three different magnetic field strengths (all P < 0.001).
conclusionThe AI models for mpMRI image classification and prostate segmentation demonstrated good performance during external validation, which could enhance efficiency in prostate volume measurement and cancer detection with mpMRI. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: These models can greatly improve the work efficiency in cancer detection, measurement of prostate volume and guided biopsies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.