Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38868487›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2024

Validation and three years of clinical experience in using an artificial intelligence algorithm as a second read system for prostate cancer diagnosis-real-world experience.

Juan Carlos Santa-Rosario, Erik A Gustafson, Dario E Sanabria Bellassai, Phillip E Gustafson, Mariano de Socarraz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 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. Article
  2. Regulatory science for AI-basedJournal of pathology informatics · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Toward Optimizing the Impact of Digital Pathology and Augmented Intelligence on Issues of Diagnosis, Grading, Staging, and Classification.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

5 authors.

Juan Carlos Santa-RosarioCorePlus Servicios Clínicos y Patológicos; Plazoleta la Cerámica, Suite 2-6 Ave. Sánchez Vilella, Esq, PR-190, Carolina, PR 00983, USA.
Erik A GustafsonCorePlus Servicios Clínicos y Patológicos; Plazoleta la Cerámica, Suite 2-6 Ave. Sánchez Vilella, Esq, PR-190, Carolina, PR 00983, USA.
Dario E Sanabria BellassaiCorePlus Servicios Clínicos y Patológicos; Plazoleta la Cerámica, Suite 2-6 Ave. Sánchez Vilella, Esq, PR-190, Carolina, PR 00983, USA.
Phillip E GustafsonCorePlus Servicios Clínicos y Patológicos; Plazoleta la Cerámica, Suite 2-6 Ave. Sánchez Vilella, Esq, PR-190, Carolina, PR 00983, USA.
Mariano de SocarrazCorePlus Servicios Clínicos y Patológicos; Plazoleta la Cerámica, Suite 2-6 Ave. Sánchez Vilella, Esq, PR-190, Carolina, PR 00983, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Prostate cancer ranks as the most frequently diagnosed cancer in men in the USA, with significant mortality rates. Early detection is pivotal for optimal patient outcomes, providing increased treatment options and potentially less invasive interventions. There remain significant challenges in prostate cancer histopathology, including the potential for missed diagnoses due to pathologist variability and subjective interpretations. Methods: To address these challenges, this study investigates the ability of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance diagnostic accuracy. The Galen™ Prostate AI algorithm was validated on a cohort of Puerto Rican men to demonstrate its efficacy in cancer detection and Gleason grading. Subsequently, the AI algorithm was integrated into routine clinical practice during a 3-year period at a CLIA certified precision pathology laboratory. Results: The Galen™ Prostate AI algorithm showed a 96.7% (95% CI 95.6-97.8) specificity and a 96.6% (95% CI 93.3-98.8) sensitivity for prostate cancer detection and 82.1% specificity (95% CI 73.9-88.5) and 81.1% sensitivity (95% CI 73.7-87.2) for distinction of Gleason Grade Group 1 from Grade Group 2+. The subsequent AI integration into routine clinical use examined prostate cancer diagnoses on >122,000 slides and 9200 cases over 3 years and had an overall AI Impact ™ factor of 1.8%. Conclusions: The potential of AI to be a powerful, reliable, and effective diagnostic tool for pathologists is highlighted, while the AI Impact™ in a real-world setting demonstrates the ability of AI to standardize prostate cancer diagnosis at a high level of performance across pathologists.

Indexed as

AI impact™Artificial intelligenceDigital pathologyGleason gradingProstate cancer

Identifiers

PMID38868487
PMCPMC11166872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.