Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38438436›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Critical evaluation of artificial intelligence as a digital twin of pathologists for prostate cancer pathology.

Okyaz Eminaga, Mahmoud Abbas, Christian Kunder, Yuri Tolkach, Ryan Han, James D Brooks, Rosalie Nolley, Axel Semjonow, Martin Boegemann, Robert West and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. [Digital twins in uro-oncology].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  2. Modern integrative prostate cancer diagnostics.Current opinion in urology · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

13 authors.

Okyaz Eminaga *AI Vobis, Palo Alto, CA, 94306, USA. okyaz.eminaga@aivobis.com.
Mahmoud Abbas *Department of Pathology, Prostate Center, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany. Mahmoud.Abbas@ukmuenster.de.
Christian Kunder *Department of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, USA.
Yuri Tolkach *Department of Pathology, Cologne University Hospital, Cologne, Germany.
Ryan HanDepartment of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, USA.
James D BrooksDepartment of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Rosalie NolleyDepartment of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Axel SemjonowDepartment of Urology, Prostate Center, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Martin BoegemannDepartment of Urology, Prostate Center, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Robert WestDepartment of Pathology, Cologne University Hospital, Cologne, Germany.
Jin LongDepartment of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, USA.
Richard E FanDepartment of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Olaf BettendorfInstitute for Pathology and Cytology, Schuettorf, Germany. O_Bettendorf@web.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prostate cancer pathology plays a crucial role in clinical management but is time-consuming. Artificial intelligence (AI) shows promise in detecting prostate cancer and grading patterns. We tested an AI-based digital twin of a pathologist, vPatho, on 2603 histological images of prostate tissue stained with hematoxylin and eosin. We analyzed various factors influencing tumor grade discordance between the vPatho system and six human pathologists. Our results demonstrated that vPatho achieved comparable performance in prostate cancer detection and tumor volume estimation, as reported in the literature. The concordance levels between vPatho and human pathologists were examined. Notably, moderate to substantial agreement was observed in identifying complementary histological features such as ductal, cribriform, nerve, blood vessel, and lymphocyte infiltration. However, concordance in tumor grading decreased when applied to prostatectomy specimens (κ = 0.44) compared to biopsy cores (κ = 0.70). Adjusting the decision threshold for the secondary Gleason pattern from 5 to 10% improved the concordance level between pathologists and vPatho for tumor grading on prostatectomy specimens (κ from 0.44 to 0.64). Potential causes of grade discordance included the vertical extent of tumors toward the prostate boundary and the proportions of slides with prostate cancer. Gleason pattern 4 was particularly associated with this population. Notably, the grade according to vPatho was not specific to any of the six pathologists involved in routine clinical grading. In conclusion, our study highlights the potential utility of AI in developing a digital twin for a pathologist. This approach can help uncover limitations in AI adoption and the practical application of the current grading system for prostate cancer pathology.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceProstatic NeoplasmsBiopsyHumansMalePathologistsProstateArtificial intelligenceAutomationDeep learningDigital twinGleason grading systemISUPPathologyProstate cancerStress tests

Identifiers

PMID38438436
PMCPMC10912767

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.