ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2025
Deep-learning-based software versus experienced nuclear medicine physician to read [
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluated whether a CE-marked deep-learning-based web platform (PSMA-DLwp) maintains a per-patient detection rate (DR) comparable to that of an experienced nuclear medicine physician (ENMP) for identifying prostate cancer (PCa) foci using [18F]-piflufolastat PET/CT in patients with first biochemical recurrence. Secondary objectives included per-region DR and the correlation of SUVmax and tumor burden assessments between the ENMP and PSMA-DLwp. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted using data from the phase III PYTHON study, which compared [18F]-piflufolastat PET/CT to [18F]-fluoromethylcholine PET/CT in patients with first biochemical recurrence of PCa. Both ENMP and PSMA-DLwp independently reviewed [18F]-piflufolastat PET/CT scans. Concordance in DRs, regional analysis, and correlation of semi-quantitative parameters (SUVmax, tumor burden) were assessed. Discordant cases were re-evaluated by the ENMP to assess potential improvements provided by PSMA-DLwp. Results: Out of 192 evaluable scans, per-patient DRs were concordant in 75% of cases, with no statistically significant difference between ENMP and PSMA-DLwp (p = 0.11). Per-region analysis for T and N staging showed no significant DR differences (p = 0.72 and p = 0.30, respectively). PSMA-DLwp identified more foci in distant regions (M1a, M1b), but these were not statistically significant. Strong positive correlations were observed between ENMP and PSMA-DLwp for SUVmax (⍴s=0.85; p < 0.0001) and tumor burden (⍴s=0.89; p < 0.0001). In 8% of discordant cases, PSMA-DLwp improved the ENMP’s initial assessment. Conclusion: The PSMA-DLwp achieves DRs comparable to an expert reader and reliably quantifies tumor burden and SUVmax, supporting its use as an adjunct in the interpretation of [18F]-piflufolastat PET/CT for PCa. Its integration into clinical workflows can enhance diagnostic consistency and efficiency, particularly in high-volume or complex cases, thereby supporting more informed clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40526126What 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.