Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39085490›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastroenterology2024

The potential of an artificial intelligence for diagnosing MRI images in rectal cancer: multicenter collaborative trial.

Atsushi Hamabe, Ichiro Takemasa, Masayuki Ishii, Koichi Okuya, Koya Hida, Daisuke Nishizaki, Atsuhiko Sumii, Shigeki Arizono, Shigeshi Kohno, Koji Tokunaga and 3 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Atsushi HamabeDepartment of Surgery, Surgical Oncology and Science, Sapporo Medical University, S1 W16, Chuo-Ku, Sapporo, 060-8543, Japan.
Ichiro TakemasaDepartment of Surgery, Surgical Oncology and Science, Sapporo Medical University, S1 W16, Chuo-Ku, Sapporo, 060-8543, Japan. itakemasa@sapmed.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1595-2453
Masayuki IshiiDepartment of Surgery, Surgical Oncology and Science, Sapporo Medical University, S1 W16, Chuo-Ku, Sapporo, 060-8543, Japan.
Koichi OkuyaDepartment of Surgery, Surgical Oncology and Science, Sapporo Medical University, S1 W16, Chuo-Ku, Sapporo, 060-8543, Japan.
Koya HidaDepartment of Surgery, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Daisuke NishizakiDepartment of Surgery, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Atsuhiko SumiiDepartment of Surgery, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Shigeki ArizonoDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital, Kobe, Japan.
Shigeshi KohnoDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital, Kobe, Japan.
Koji TokunagaDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Japanese Red Cross Wakayama Medical Center, Wakayama, Japan.
Hirotsugu NakaiDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Yoshiharu SakaiDepartment of Surgery, Osaka Red-Cross Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Masahiko WatanabeDepartment of Surgery, Kitasato University Kitasato Institute Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn artificial intelligence-based algorithm we developed, mrAI, satisfactorily segmented the rectal tumor, rectum, and mesorectum from MRI data of rectal cancer patients in an initial study. Herein, we aimed to validate mrAI using an independent dataset.

methodsWe utilized MRI images collected in another nationwide research project, "Open versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Advanced Low Rectal Cancer Patients". MRIs from 467 cases with upfront surgery were utilized; six radiologists centralized the MRI evaluations. The diagnostic accuracies of mrAI and the radiologists for tumor depth were compared using pathologic diagnosis as a reference.

resultsFor all cases, centralized diagnosis demonstrated 84.2% sensitivity, 37.7% specificity, and 73.7% accuracy; mrAI exhibited 70.6% sensitivity, 61.3% specificity, and 68.5% accuracy. After limiting MRIs to those acquired by a Philips scanner, with an inter-slice spacing of ≤ 6 mm-both conditions similar to those used in the development of mrAI-the performance of mrAI improved to 76.8% sensitivity, 76.7% specificity, and 76.7% accuracy, while the centralized diagnosis showed 81.8% sensitivity, 36.7% specificity, and 71.3% accuracy. Regarding relapse-free survival, the prognosis for tumors staged ≥ T3 was significantly worse than for tumors staged ≤ T2 (P = 0.0484) in the pathologic diagnosis. While no significant difference was observed between ≥ T3 and ≤ T2 tumors in the centralized diagnosis (P = 0.1510), the prognosis for ≥ T3 was significantly worse in the mrAI diagnosis (P = 0.0318).

conclusionProper imaging conditions for MRI can enhance the accuracy of mrAI, which has the potential to provide feedback to radiologists without overestimating tumor stage.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMagnetic Resonance ImagingRectal NeoplasmsSensitivity and SpecificityAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAlgorithmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedArtificial intelligenceMRIRectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID39085490
PMCPMC11415406

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.