ArticleScientific reports2025
Clinical implications of deep learning based image analysis of whole radical prostatectomy specimens.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Whole-mount histopathology as spatial ground truth for artificial intelligence in prostate cancer: a structured narrative review of techniques, models, and translational gaps.American journal of clinical and experimental urology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis faces significant challenges due to its complex pathological characteristics and insufficient pathologist resources. While deep learning-based image analysis (DLIA) shows promise in enhancing diagnostic accuracy, its application to radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens remains underexplored. In this study, we evaluated the clinical feasibility and prognostic value of a DLIA algorithm for Gleason grading and tumor quantification on whole RP specimens. Using 29,646 digitized H&E-stained slides from 992 patients who underwent RP, we compared the case-level algorithm results with pathologist assessments for the International Society of Urological Pathology grade groups (GG), tumor volumes (TV), and percent tumor volumes (PTV). We also evaluated their prognostic performance in predicting biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS). Pathologists identified cancer in 986 cases and assigned GG in 980, while the DLIA algorithm identified cancer and assigned GG to all cases without omission. DLIA-assigned GG showed fair concordance with pathologist assessments (linear-weighted Cohen's kappa: 0.374) and demonstrated similar efficacy in predicting BPFS (c-index: 0.644 for DLIA vs. 0.654 for pathologists; p = 0.52). In tumor quantification, DLIA-measured TV and PTV were strongly correlated with pathologist-based measurements (Pearson's correlation coefficient: 0.830 and 0.846, respectively), but showed stronger efficacy in BPFS prediction, with c-index values of 0.657 and 0.672 compared to 0.622 and 0.641, respectively. Incorporating DLIA-derived PTV into the CAPRA-S score significantly improved its predictive accuracy for BCR (p = 0.006), increasing the c-index from 0.704 to 0.715. Our findings indicate that DLIA algorithms can enhance the accuracy of Gleason grading and tumor quantification in RP specimens, providing valuable support in clinical decision-making for PCa management.
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.