ReviewGland surgery2026
Artificial intelligence for prostate cancer detection and risk stratification using transrectal ultrasound: a narrative review.
Review in Gland surgery, 2026. 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.
- Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Evaluation of Biological Techniques.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Prostate cancer (PCa) management and outcomes are dependent on risk stratification. Indolent disease is often managed with active surveillance, whereas clinically significant PCa (CSPCa) necessitates prompt intervention due to its aggressive potential. Although transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) is central to diagnosis and biopsy guidance, its limited resolution and high interobserver variability complicate accurate risk assessment. Artificial intelligence (AI) offers a promising solution to these limitations. This review evaluates the current landscape of TRUS-based AI models for three critical objectives: PCa detection, CSPCa identification, and risk stratification. Methods: We systematically searched the PubMed and Web of Science databases for peer-reviewed, original English-language articles published from 1999 to 2026. Key Content and Findings: TRUS-based AI models have advanced significantly, achieving area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.78-0.96 for PCa detection and 0.85-0.90 for CSPCa identification, particularly when leveraging three-dimensional (3D) architectures or multiparametric fusion (e.g., elastography or contrast enhancement). Performance is robust for binary risk stratification (e.g., low-intermediate Conclusions: TRUS-based AI demonstrates high accuracy for PCa detection and CSPCa identification, particularly with 3D architectures or multiparametric fusion. However, the inability to predict the full five-tier ISUP GG stratification represents a major unmet need. Future research should prioritize standardized multicenter data collection and advanced algorithms to address localization challenges and enable precise risk stratification, thereby facilitating clinical translation.
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.