Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40753327›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2026

External evaluation of an open-source deep learning model for prostate cancer detection on bi-parametric MRI.

Patricia M Johnson, Angela Tong, Luke Ginocchio, Juan Lloret Del Hoyo, Paul Smereka, Stephanie A Harmon, Baris Turkbey, Hersh Chandarana

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

8 authors.

Patricia M JohnsonBernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA. patricia.johnson3@nyulangone.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1547-9969
Angela TongBernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Luke GinocchioBernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Juan Lloret Del HoyoBernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Paul SmerekaBernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Stephanie A HarmonMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Baris TurkbeyMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Hersh ChandaranaBernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.

Funding

TR&D 4: Revealing Microstructure: Biophysical modeling and validation for discovery and clinical careP41EB017183 · NIBIB · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI Daniel K Sodickson · 2014 to 2026
$19.3M
NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB017183NIBIB NIH HHS P41-EB017183
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of an open-source deep learning (DL) model for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in biparametric MRI (bpMRI). It also aims to outline the necessary components of the model that facilitate effective sharing and external evaluation of PCa detection models. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis retrospective diagnostic accuracy study evaluated a publicly available DL model trained to detect PCa on bpMRI. External validation was performed on bpMRI exams from 151 biologically male patients (mean age, 65 ± 8 years). The model's performance was evaluated using patient-level classification of PCa with both radiologist interpretation and histopathology serving as the ground truth. The model processed bpMRI inputs to generate lesion probability maps. Performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for PI-RADS ≥ 3, PI-RADS ≥ 4, and csPCa (defined as Gleason ≥ 7) at an exam level.

resultsThe model achieved AUCs of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.80-0.92) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85-0.96) for predicting PI-RADS ≥ 3 and ≥ 4 exams, respectively, and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.71-0.86) for csPCa. Sensitivity and specificity for csPCa were 0.87 and 0.53, respectively. Fleiss' kappa for inter-reader agreement was 0.51.

conclusionThe open-source DL model offers high sensitivity to clinically significant prostate cancer. The study underscores the importance of sharing model code and weights to enable effective external validation and further research. KEY POINTS: Question Inter-reader variability hinders the consistent and accurate detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in MRI. Findings An open-source deep learning model demonstrated reproducible diagnostic accuracy, achieving AUCs of 0.86 for PI-RADS ≥ 3 and 0.78 for CsPCa lesions. Clinical relevance The model's high sensitivity for MRI-positive lesions (PI-RADS ≥ 3) may provide support for radiologists. Its open-source deployment facilitates further development and evaluation across diverse clinical settings, maximizing its potential utility.

Indexed as

Deep LearningImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsAgedHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityDeep learningMagnetic resonance imagingProstatic neoplasmsReproducibility of results

Identifiers

PMID40753327
PMCPMC13036808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.