ArticleEuropean radiology2026
External evaluation of an open-source deep learning model for prostate cancer detection on bi-parametric MRI.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent advances in discriminating prostate cancer from benign prostatic diseases in the pre-biopsy population.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Prostate MRI: Addressing Current Limitations Through Emerging Technologies.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Review
- Using Artificial Intelligence as a Risk Prediction Model in Patients with Equivocal Multiparametric Prostate MRI Findings.Cancers · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
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
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.