ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Challenges in Using Deep Neural Networks Across Multiple Readers in Delineating Prostate Gland Anatomy.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
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.