Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38724765›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2024

Assessing deep learning reconstruction for faster prostate MRI: visual vs. diagnostic performance metrics.

Quintin van Lohuizen, Christian Roest, Frank F J Simonis, Stefan J Fransen, Thomas C Kwee, Derya Yakar, Henkjan Huisman

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Quintin van LohuizenUniversity Medical Centre Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands. q.y.van.lohuizen@umcg.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7128-0818
Christian RoestUniversity Medical Centre Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Frank F J SimonisUniversity of Twente, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522 NB, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Stefan J FransenUniversity Medical Centre Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Thomas C KweeUniversity Medical Centre Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Derya YakarUniversity Medical Centre Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Henkjan HuismanRadboud University Medical Centre, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

Health~Holland LSHM20103Siemens Healthineers LSHM20103
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDeep learning (DL) MRI reconstruction enables fast scan acquisition with good visual quality, but the diagnostic impact is often not assessed because of large reader study requirements. This study used existing diagnostic DL to assess the diagnostic quality of reconstructed images. MATERIALS AND

methodsA retrospective multisite study of 1535 patients assessed biparametric prostate MRI between 2016 and 2020. Likely clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) lesions (PI-RADS

resultsDLRecon improved visual quality at 4- and 8-fold (R4, R8) subsampling rates, with SSIM (range: -1 to 1) improved to 0.78 ± 0.02 (p < 0.001) and 0.67 ± 0.03 (p < 0.001) from 0.68 ± 0.03 and 0.51 ± 0.03, respectively. However, diagnostic performance at R4 showed a pAUC FROC of 1.33 (CI 1.28-1.39) for DL and 1.29 (CI 1.23-1.35) for naive reconstructions, both significantly lower than fully sampled pAUC of 1.58 (DL: p = 0.024, naïve: p = 0.02). Similar trends were noted for R8.

conclusionDL reconstruction produces visually appealing images but may reduce diagnostic accuracy. Incorporating diagnostic AI into the assessment framework offers a clinically relevant metric essential for adopting reconstruction models into clinical practice. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: In clinical settings, caution is warranted when using DL reconstruction for MRI scans. While it recovered visual quality, it failed to match the prostate cancer detection rates observed in scans not subjected to acceleration and DL reconstruction.

Indexed as

Deep LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsAgedHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedProstateRetrospective StudiesCancer of prostateDeep learningDiagnosis (computer-assisted)Image analysis (computer-assisted)Magnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID38724765
PMCPMC11519109

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.