Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41635777›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in urology2025

Lesion detection using artificial intelligence models in MR images of prostate cancer and prostatitis patients and comparison of model performance.

Muhammed Kaya, Osman Durdag, Merve Solak, Ahmet Coskuncay, Gulen Burakgazi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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

5 authors.

Muhammed KayaFaculty of Medicine, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University, Rize, Türkiye.
Osman DurdagDepartment of Software Engineering, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Türkiye.
Merve SolakFaculty of Medicine, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University, Rize, Türkiye.
Ahmet CoskuncayDepartment of Computer Engineering, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Türkiye.
Gulen BurakgaziFaculty of Medicine, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University, Rize, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: The diagnosis of prostate cancer and prostatitis becomes challenging when using biparametric Magnetic Resonance (MR) images. This research investigates deep learning models to assess their capability for improving diagnostic accuracy and assisting radiologists. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 153 patients who received histopathological diagnoses of prostate cancer or prostatitis between January 2017 and December 2023. Patients were categorized according to PI-RADS scores, and both T2A and ADC-DWI (Apparent Diffusion Coefficient-Diffusion-Weighted Imaging) sequences were examined. Expert radiologists labeled the images prior to lesion detection with the Faster R-CNN (Faster Region-based Convolutional Neural Network) model. Nine different classification models were trained using normal and augmented datasets to evaluate their performance. Model reliability was further assessed through cross-validation and statistical significance testing. Results: The Faster R-CNN model achieved 96% accuracy (95% CI: 93.2-98.8%) for P5 and 99% accuracy (95% CI: 96.7-100%) for prostatitis in T2A sequences, and 90% accuracy (95% CI: 85.4-94.6%) for P5 and 97% accuracy (95% CI: 93.8-100%) for prostatitis in ADC-DWI sequences. However, the model failed to effectively detect P4 lesions (0% sensitivity in T2A and 30% in ADC-DWI). The model demonstrated comparable performance to expert radiologists, with no significant difference in overall P5 detection (p > 0.05), and Cohen's kappa indicated substantial agreement (κ = 0.86). The classification models achieved up to 97% accuracy with InceptionV3 in T2A sequences and up to 99% accuracy with DenseNet201 in ADC-DWI sequences. To further evaluate discriminative performance, AUROC values were calculated for all classification models. In T2A sequences, AUROC scores were DenseNet201 (0.98), EfficientNetV2L (0.99), InceptionV3 (0.99), MobileNetV2 (0.92), NASNetLarge (0.83), ResNet50 (0.76), VGG16 (0.98), VGG19 (0.97), and Xception (0.96). In ADC-DWI sequences, AUROC values were DenseNet201 (0.99), EfficientNetV2L (0.96), InceptionV3 (0.99), MobileNetV2 (0.82), NASNetLarge (0.90), ResNet50 (0.64), VGG16 (0.96), VGG19 (0.86), and Xception (0.97), reinforcing the superior discriminative ability of DenseNet201 and InceptionV3 across modalities. Conclusion: The deep learning models demonstrated promising diagnostic capabilities, comparable to radiologists, in distinguishing prostatitis and P5 prostate cancer lesions. Overall, the findings suggest that AI-based diagnostic tools hold potential as clinical decision support systems.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencefaster R-CNNmagnetic resonance imagingprostatic neoplasmsprostatitis

Identifiers

PMID41635777
PMCPMC12861897

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.