Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41028766›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Automating prostate volume acquisition using abdominal ultrasound scans for prostate-specific antigen density calculations.

Rory Douglas Bennett, Tristan Barrett, Nikita Sushentsev, Nimalan Sanmugalingam, Kang-Lung Lee, Vincent J Gnanapragasam, Zion Tsz Ho Tse

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Rory Douglas BennettSchool of Engineering and Materials Science, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK.
Tristan BarrettDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Nikita SushentsevDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Nimalan SanmugalingamDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Kang-Lung LeeDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Vincent J GnanapragasamDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Zion Tsz Ho TseSchool of Engineering and Materials Science, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK. z.tse@qmul.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Proposed methods for prostate cancer screening are currently prohibitively expensive (due to the high costs of imaging equipment such as magnetic resonance imaging and traditional ultrasound systems), inadequate in their detection rates, require highly trained specialists, and/or are invasive, resulting in patient discomfort. These limitations make population-wide screening for prostate cancer challenging. Machine learning techniques applied to abdominal ultrasound scanning may help alleviate some of these disadvantages. Abdominal ultrasound scans are comparatively low cost and exhibit minimal patient discomfort, and machine learning can be applied to mitigate against the high operator-dependent variability of ultrasound scanning. In this study, a state-of-the-art machine learning model was compared to an expert radiologist and trainee radiologist registrars of varying experience when estimating prostate volume from abdominal ultrasound images, a crucial step in detecting prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen density. The machine learning model calculated prostatic volume by marking out dimensions of the prolate ellipsoid formula from two orthogonal images of the prostate acquired with abdominal ultrasound scans (which could be conducted by operators with minimal experience in a primary care setting). While both the algorithm and the registrars showed high correlation with the expert ([Formula: see text]) it was found that the model outperformed the trainees in both accuracy (lowest average volume error of [Formula: see text]) and consistency (lowest IQR of [Formula: see text] and lowest average volume standard deviation of [Formula: see text]). The results are promising for the future development of an automated prostate cancer screening workflow using machine learning and abdominal ultrasound scans.

Indexed as

AbdomenEarly Detection of CancerProstateProstatic NeoplasmsUltrasonographyAgedAged, 80 and overClinical CompetenceHumansKallikreinsMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedOrgan SizeProstate-Specific AntigenRadiologistsKallikreinsKLK3 protein, humanProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID41028766
PMCPMC12484655

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.