Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40392414›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026

Challenges in Using Deep Neural Networks Across Multiple Readers in Delineating Prostate Gland Anatomy.

Shatha Abudalou, Jung Choi, Kenneth Gage, Julio Pow-Sang, Yasin Yilmaz, Yoganand Balagurunathan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Shatha AbudalouDepartment of Machine Learning, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
Jung ChoiDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
Kenneth GageDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
Julio Pow-SangDepartment of Genitourinary Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
Yasin YilmazDepartment of Electrical Engineering, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Yoganand BalagurunathanDepartment of Machine Learning, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA. yoganand.balagurunathan@moffitt.org.

Funding

Cohon's family funding 5U01CA200464-07
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deep learning methods provide enormous promise in automating manually intense tasks such as medical image segmentation and provide workflow assistance to clinical experts. Deep neural networks (DNN) require a significant amount of training examples and a variety of expert opinions to capture the nuances and the context, a challenging proposition in oncological studies (H. Wang et al., Nature, vol. 620, no. 7972, pp. 47-60, Aug 2023). Inter-reader variability among clinical experts is a real-world problem that severely impacts the generalization of DNN reproducibility. This study proposes quantifying the variability in DNN performance using expert opinions and exploring strategies to train the network and adapt between expert opinions. We address the inter-reader variability problem in the context of prostate gland segmentation using a well-studied DNN, the 3D U-Net model. Reference data includes magnetic resonance imaging (MRI, T2-weighted) with prostate glandular anatomy annotations from two expert readers (R#1, n = 342 and R#2, n = 204). 3D U-Net was trained and tested with individual expert examples (R#1 and R#2) and had an average Dice coefficient of 0.825 (CI, [0.81 0.84]) and 0.85 (CI, [0.82 0.88]), respectively. Combined training with a representative cohort proportion (R#1, n = 100 and R#2, n = 150) yielded enhanced model reproducibility across readers, achieving an average test Dice coefficient of 0.863 (CI, [0.85 0.87]) for R#1 and 0.869 (CI, [0.87 0.88]) for R#2. We re-evaluated the model performance across the gland volumes (large, small) and found improved performance for large gland size with an average Dice coefficient to be at 0.846 [CI, 0.82 0.87] and 0.872 [CI, 0.86 0.89] for R#1 and R#2, respectively, estimated using fivefold cross-validation. Performance for small gland sizes diminished with average Dice of 0.8 [0.79, 0.82] and 0.8 [0.79, 0.83] for R#1 and R#2, respectively.

Indexed as

Deep LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeural Networks, ComputerProstateHumansMaleObserver VariationProstatic NeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsMulti-reader variabilityProstate gland segmentationReproducibility of deep network

Identifiers

PMID40392414
PMCPMC12921062

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.