ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2026
Deep learning algorithm assisting diagnosis of prostate cancer extracapsular extension based on [
Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in prostate cancer care from performance to clinical integration.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Article
- The value of [Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- AI-driven precision diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer: a narrative review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to develop and validate deep learning (DL) models based on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and [
methodsA total of 388 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy were enrolled from centers A, B and C. Three DL models based on mpMRI, PET/CT, and a combined MPC model were developed and compared with a manual model based on the ECE grading system. Additionally, three combined models (mpMRI-M, PET/CT-M, and MPC-M) were constructed by integrating the DL models with the Manual model. To enhance clinical applicability, an easy model (E-MPC-M) was developed. Model performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC) and metrics derived from the confusion matrix. Gradient-weighted class-activation-mapping (Grad-CAM) was employed to visualize model interpretability.
resultsIn the internal cohort, the Manual, MPC, and MPC-M models achieved AUCs of 0.752, 0.897, and 0.907, respectively; corresponding sensitivities were 0.616, 0.896, and 0.915, and specificities were 0.791, 0.740, and 0.802. In the external validation cohort, these models achieved AUCs of 0.665, 0.824, and 0.849; sensitivities of 0.318, 0.955, and 0.955; and specificities of 0.960, 0.600, and 0.640, respectively. The E-MPC-M model also showed robust performance, with an AUC of 0.862 in the internal cohort and 0.775 in the external cohort. Grad-CAM visualizations highlighted the model's focus on tumor-relevant regions, confirming effective learning of tumor features.
conclusionsThe MPC-M model demonstrated strong predictive performance for PCa ECE across internal and external cohorts, while the E-MPC-M model retained much of this performance with enhanced clinical practicality. However, these models should be considered as preliminary, and larger prospective multicenter studies are required to confirm their robustness and generalizability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41361534What 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.