ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Comparison of the impact of rectal susceptibility artifacts in prostate magnetic resonance imaging on subjective evaluation and deep learning: a two-center retrospective study.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine learning-based MRI imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Current status and future directions of AI in prostate cancer detection on MRI: a special report from the ESUR prostate MRI working group authors.European radiology · 2026Article
- Prostate MRI cancer detection rate by deep learning-assisted image quality categorization: gas-induced susceptibility artifacts in diffusion-weighted imaging.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the influence of rectal susceptibility artifacts on the subjective evaluation and deep learning (DL) in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis.
methodsThis retrospective two-center study included 1052 patients who underwent MRI and biopsy due to clinically suspected PCa between November 2019 and November 2023. The extent of rectal artifacts in these patients' images was evaluated using the Likert four-level method. The PCa diagnosis was performed by six radiologists and an automated PCa diagnosis DL method. The performance of DL and radiologists was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the area under the multi-reader multi-case receiver operating characteristic curve, respectively.
resultsJunior radiologists and DL demonstrated statistically significantly higher AUCs in patients without artifacts compared to those with artifacts (R1: 0.73 vs. 0.64; P = 0.01; R2: 0.74 vs. 0.67; P = 0.03; DL: 0.77 vs. 0.61; P < 0.001). In subgroup analysis, no statistically significant differences in the AUC were observed among different grades of rectal artifacts for both all radiologists (0.08 ≤ P ≤ 0.90) and DL models (0.12 ≤ P ≤ 0.96). The AUC for DL without artifacts significantly exceeded those with artifacts in both the peripheral zone (PZ) and transitional zone (TZ) (DL
conclusionsRectal susceptibility artifacts have significant negative effects on subjective evaluation of junior radiologists and DL. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.