ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Evaluation of AI for prostate cancer detection in biparametric-MRI screening population data.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic performance of AI-powered prostate MRI against biopsy ground truth: quasi-continuous risk scoring versus fixed PI-RADS thresholds.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026Article
- Ongoing and completed clinical trials on prostate cancer screening using MRI.European radiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe goal of this study was to curate a prostate MRI dataset from a screening population and to train and evaluate a deep-learning segmentation method on the same data. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn artificial intelligence (AI) system, based on a deep-learning-based segmentation model (nnU-Net method), was trained and evaluated with MRI data from a prostate cancer screening population (G2-trial). The goal of the AI was to detect clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC), defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 or higher. The AI system was compared to the performance of radiologists using PI-RADS v2 evaluation metrics. Histopathology was used as the reference standard in the dataset. To better verify negative cases, 288 men were subject to systematic biopsies regardless of MRI findings, and all men had at least 3 years of follow-up.
resultsA total of 1354 MRI examinations in 1254 men with a median age of 58 years (range 50-63 years) were randomly divided into a training set (1086 examinations) and a test set (268 examinations). The resulting area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was 0.83 (95% CI 0.73-0.92) for the AI system; however, with significantly lower specificity at matched sensitivity levels compared to radiologists.
conclusionA prostate MRI dataset from a screening population with histological confirmation was curated and evaluated with AI. The neural network trained and tested on this data produced lower specificities than the radiologists. KEY POINTS: Question Does an AI system trained in a screening cohort perform as well as radiologists? Findings An AI trained on screening data achieved an AUROC of 0.83 (95% CI 0.73-0.92) with lower specificity at the same sensitivity levels as radiologists. Clinical relevance An AI system trained in a screening population has lower specificity than radiologists using PI-RADS v2.
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.