ArticleNature communications2025
Pathologist-like explainable AI for interpretable Gleason grading in prostate cancer.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence-assisted histopathological diagnosis of endocervical gastric-type adenocarcinoma: a multicenter model development and validation study.The journal of pathology. Clinical research · 2026Article
- A human-in-the-loop explanation framework for morphologically transparent AI predictions from whole-slide images.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in urological malignancy diagnosis and prognosis: current status and future prospects.The Canadian journal of urology · 2026Review
- Concordance among experts in assessing apical mucosal preservation during holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP): implications for artificial intelligence model development.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Pathologist-like explainable AI for interpretable Gleason grading in prostate cancer.Nature communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
67 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aggressiveness of prostate cancer is primarily assessed from histopathological data using the Gleason scoring system. Conventional artificial intelligence (AI) approaches can predict Gleason scores, but often lack explainability, which may limit clinical acceptance. Here, we present an alternative, inherently explainable AI that circumvents the need for post-hoc explainability methods. The model was trained on 1,015 tissue microarray core images, annotated with detailed pattern descriptions by 54 international pathologists following standardized guidelines. It uses pathologist-defined terminology and was trained using soft labels to capture data uncertainty. This approach enables robust Gleason pattern segmentation despite high interobserver variability. The model achieved comparable or superior performance to direct Gleason pattern segmentation (Dice score:
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.