ArticlePloS one2025
Detection and score grading for prostate adenocarcinoma using semantic segmentation.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prostate cancer is a major global health challenge. In this study, we present an approach for the detection and grading of prostate cancer through the semantic segmentation of adenocarcinoma tissues, specifically focusing on distinguishing between Gleason patterns 3 and 4. Our method leverages deep learning techniques to improve diagnostic accuracy and enhance patient treatment strategies. We developed a new dataset comprising 100 digitized whole-slide images of prostate needle core biopsy specimens, which are publicly available for research purposes. Our proposed model integrates dilated attention mechanisms and a residual convolutional U-Net architecture to enhance the richness of feature representations. Class imbalance is addressed using pixel expansion and class weights, and a five-fold cross-validation method ensures robust training and validation. In model ensemble evaluation, the model achieves an average Dice of 0.87 and accuracy of 0.92 on the cross-validation held-out folds. When applied to completely unseen, external test data, the model demonstrates an average Dice of 0.64 and accuracy of 0.81. Segmentation and grading results were validated by a team of expert pathologists. Based on experimental results, this study demonstrates the potential of our proposed method and model as a valuable tool for the detection and grading of prostate cancer in clinical settings.
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.