Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38568094›Full record

SynthesisRadiology. Artificial intelligence2024

Deep Learning Prostate MRI Segmentation Accuracy and Robustness: A Systematic Review.

Mohammad-Kasim Fassia, Adithya Balasubramanian, Sungmin Woo, Hebert Alberto Vargas, Hedvig Hricak, Ender Konukoglu, Anton S Becker

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Radiology. Artificial intelligence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. AI in Prostate MRI: A Task-Based Review.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2025
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Mohammad-Kasim FassiaFrom the Departments of Radiology (M.K.F.) and Urology (A.B.), New York-Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center, 525 E 68th St, New York, NY 10065-4870; Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (S.W., H.A.V., H.H., A.S.B.); and Department of Biomedical Imaging, ETH-Zurich, Zurich Switzerland (E.K.).ORCID 0009-0006-0315-041X
Adithya BalasubramanianFrom the Departments of Radiology (M.K.F.) and Urology (A.B.), New York-Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center, 525 E 68th St, New York, NY 10065-4870; Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (S.W., H.A.V., H.H., A.S.B.); and Department of Biomedical Imaging, ETH-Zurich, Zurich Switzerland (E.K.).ORCID 0000-0002-7912-8896
Sungmin WooFrom the Departments of Radiology (M.K.F.) and Urology (A.B.), New York-Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center, 525 E 68th St, New York, NY 10065-4870; Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (S.W., H.A.V., H.H., A.S.B.); and Department of Biomedical Imaging, ETH-Zurich, Zurich Switzerland (E.K.).ORCID 0000-0001-8459-8369
Hebert Alberto VargasFrom the Departments of Radiology (M.K.F.) and Urology (A.B.), New York-Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center, 525 E 68th St, New York, NY 10065-4870; Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (S.W., H.A.V., H.H., A.S.B.); and Department of Biomedical Imaging, ETH-Zurich, Zurich Switzerland (E.K.).ORCID 0000-0003-1169-133X
Hedvig HricakFrom the Departments of Radiology (M.K.F.) and Urology (A.B.), New York-Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center, 525 E 68th St, New York, NY 10065-4870; Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (S.W., H.A.V., H.H., A.S.B.); and Department of Biomedical Imaging, ETH-Zurich, Zurich Switzerland (E.K.).ORCID 0000-0003-2240-9694
Ender KonukogluFrom the Departments of Radiology (M.K.F.) and Urology (A.B.), New York-Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center, 525 E 68th St, New York, NY 10065-4870; Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (S.W., H.A.V., H.H., A.S.B.); and Department of Biomedical Imaging, ETH-Zurich, Zurich Switzerland (E.K.).ORCID 0000-0002-2542-3611
Anton S BeckerFrom the Departments of Radiology (M.K.F.) and Urology (A.B.), New York-Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center, 525 E 68th St, New York, NY 10065-4870; Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (S.W., H.A.V., H.H., A.S.B.); and Department of Biomedical Imaging, ETH-Zurich, Zurich Switzerland (E.K.).ORCID 0000-0001-8372-6496

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose To investigate the accuracy and robustness of prostate segmentation using deep learning across various training data sizes, MRI vendors, prostate zones, and testing methods relative to fellowship-trained diagnostic radiologists. Materials and Methods In this systematic review, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were queried for English-language articles using keywords and related terms for prostate MRI segmentation and deep learning algorithms dated to July 31, 2022. A total of 691 articles from the search query were collected and subsequently filtered to 48 on the basis of predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Multiple characteristics were extracted from selected studies, such as deep learning algorithm performance, MRI vendor, and training dataset features. The primary outcome was comparison of mean Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) for prostate segmentation for deep learning algorithms versus diagnostic radiologists. Results Forty-eight studies were included. Most published deep learning algorithms for whole prostate gland segmentation (39 of 42 [93%]) had a DSC at or above expert level (DSC ≥ 0.86). The mean DSC was 0.79 ± 0.06 (SD) for peripheral zone, 0.87 ± 0.05 for transition zone, and 0.90 ± 0.04 for whole prostate gland segmentation. For selected studies that used one major MRI vendor, the mean DSCs of each were as follows: General Electric (three of 48 studies), 0.92 ± 0.03; Philips (four of 48 studies), 0.92 ± 0.02; and Siemens (six of 48 studies), 0.91 ± 0.03. Conclusion Deep learning algorithms for prostate MRI segmentation demonstrated accuracy similar to that of expert radiologists despite varying parameters; therefore, future research should shift toward evaluating segmentation robustness and patient outcomes across diverse clinical settings.

Indexed as

Deep LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMaleProstateDeep LearningGenital/ReproductiveMRIProstate Segmentation

Identifiers

PMID38568094
PMCPMC11294957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.