ArticleInsights into imaging2025
Prostate MRI cancer detection rate by deep learning-assisted image quality categorization: gas-induced susceptibility artifacts in diffusion-weighted imaging.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deep learning-based prostate cancer diagnosis on MRI with hip prostheses: artifact and sequence effects.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the impact of gas-induced artifacts in diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) on prostate MRI cancer detection rate (CDR).
methodsThis three-center retrospective study included 34,697 MRI examinations between 2017 and 2022. Seven radiologists categorized the degree of gas-induced artifacts of 1595 DWI series into optimal, mild, moderate, and severe. Then, a deep learning model categorizing artifact severity was developed to help identify series with gas-induced artifacts. After excluding series used for training the model, the model was applied to 12,594 DWI series, which were performed for patients without documented prostate cancer. Of these, radiologists reviewed the bottom 300 series predicted as poor image quality and recategorized them if necessary. Case-control matching was performed to compare CDR. Examinations categorized by radiologists as mild-severe were used as target groups, while those categorized as optimal by either radiologists or the model were used to construct matched control groups. CDR was defined as the number of examinations assigned PI-RADS ≥ 3 with pathologically proven clinically significant cancer divided by the total number of examinations. The degree of CDR reduction was evaluated using the chi-squared test.
resultsThe target groups included 632 examinations (66.0 ± 9.5 years). The CDR in the target and matched control groups, respectively, for each artifact grade were as follows: severe (n = 141) vs optimal (n = 705), 0.24 vs 0.26, p = 0.58; moderate (n = 161) vs optimal (n = 966), 0.25 vs 0.24, p = 0.84; mild (n = 330) vs optimal (n = 1320), 0.25 vs 0.22, p = 0.17.
conclusionNo evidence was found that gas-induced DWI artifacts reduce the CDR of prostate MRI. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The CDR of prostate MRI was not significantly reduced by susceptibility artifacts from rectal gas, which will be one consideration in rectal preparation protocols. KEY POINTS: Gas-induced susceptibility artifact is a common issue in prostate MRI. The CDR decreased as the degree of artifacts increased. But there was no significant reduction even in severe artifact cases.
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.