Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40623883›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Development and retrospective validation of an artificial intelligence system for diagnostic assessment of prostate biopsies: study protocol.

Nita Mulliqi, Anders Blilie, Xiaoyi Ji, Kelvin Szolnoky, Henrik Olsson, Matteo Titus, Geraldine Martinez Gonzalez, Sol Erika Boman, Masi Valkonen, Einar Gudlaugsson and 21 more

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

31 authors.

Nita MulliqiDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Anders BlilieDepartment of Pathology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Xiaoyi JiDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kelvin SzolnokyDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0554-1872
Henrik OlssonDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Matteo TitusDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Geraldine Martinez GonzalezDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Sol Erika BomanDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Masi ValkonenInstitute of Biomedicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Einar GudlaugssonDepartment of Pathology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Svein Reidar KjosavikThe General Practice and Care Coordination Research Group, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
José AsenjoDepartment of Pathology, SYNLAB, Madrid, Spain.
Marcello GambacortaDepartment of Pathology, SYNLAB, Brescia, Italy.
Paolo LibrettiDepartment of Pathology, SYNLAB, Brescia, Italy.
Marcin BraunDepartment of Pathology, Chair of Oncology, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.
Radzislaw KordekDepartment of Pathology, Chair of Oncology, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.
Roman Łowicki1st Department of Urology, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.
Kristina HotakainenDepartment of Clinical Chemistry, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Päivi VäreMehiläinen Länsi-Pohja Hospital, Kemi, Finland.
Bodil Ginnerup PedersenDepartment of Radiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2792-7343
Karina Dalsgaard SørensenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Benedicte Parm UlhøiDepartment of Pathology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Mattias RantalainenDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Pekka RuusuvuoriInstitute of Biomedicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Brett DelahuntMalaghan Institute of Medical Research, Wellington, New Zealand.
Hemamali SamaratungaAquesta Uropathology and University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Toyonori TsuzukiDepartment of Surgical Pathology, School of Medicine, Aichi Medical University, Nagoya, Japan.
Emilius Adrianus Maria JanssenDepartment of Pathology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Lars EgevadDepartment of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kimmo KartasaloDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, SciLifeLab, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden kimmo.kartasalo@ki.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9470-4783
Martin EklundDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHistopathological evaluation of prostate biopsies using the Gleason scoring system is critical for prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment selection. However, grading variability among pathologists can lead to inconsistent assessments, risking inappropriate treatment. Similar challenges complicate the assessment of other prognostic features like cribriform cancer morphology and perineural invasion. Many pathology departments are also facing an increasingly unsustainable workload due to rising prostate cancer incidence and a decreasing pathologist workforce coinciding with increasing requirements for more complex assessments and reporting. Digital pathology and artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms for analysing whole slide images show promise in improving the accuracy and efficiency of histopathological assessments. Studies have demonstrated AI's capability to diagnose and grade prostate cancer comparably to expert pathologists. However, external validations on diverse data sets have been limited and often show reduced performance. Historically, there have been no well-established guidelines for AI study designs and validation methods. Diagnostic assessments of AI systems often lack preregistered protocols and rigorous external cohort sampling, essential for reliable evidence of their safety and accuracy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study protocol covers the retrospective validation of an AI system for prostate biopsy assessment. The primary objective of the study is to develop a high-performing and robust AI model for diagnosis and Gleason scoring of prostate cancer in core needle biopsies, and at scale evaluate whether it can generalise to fully external data from independent patients, pathology laboratories and digitalisation platforms. The secondary objectives cover AI performance in estimating cancer extent and detecting cribriform prostate cancer and perineural invasion. This protocol outlines the steps for data collection, predefined partitioning of data cohorts for AI model training and validation, model development and predetermined statistical analyses, ensuring systematic development and comprehensive validation of the system. The protocol adheres to Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model of Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis+AI (TRIPOD+AI), Protocol Items for External Cohort Evaluation of a Deep Learning System in Cancer Diagnostics (PIECES), Checklist for AI in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) and other relevant best practices. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Data collection and usage were approved by the respective ethical review boards of each participating clinical laboratory, and centralised anonymised data handling was approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority. The study will be conducted in agreement with the Helsinki Declaration. The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications (open access).

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceProstateProstatic NeoplasmsBiopsyHumansMaleNeoplasm GradingResearch DesignRetrospective StudiesArtificial IntelligenceHISTOPATHOLOGYProstateRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID40623883
PMCPMC12258300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.