ArticleEuropean journal of radiology artificial intelligence2025
Deep learning-based detection and segmentation of osseous metastatic prostate cancer lesions on computed tomography.
Article in European journal of radiology artificial intelligence, 2025. 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.
- TCIA Radiology Image Processing for AI and Radiomics.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Radiomics and Back Pain.Global spine journal · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Prostate adenocarcinoma frequently metastasizes to bone and is detected via computed tomography (CT) scans. Accurate detection and segmentation of these lesions are critical for diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring. This study aims to automate lesion detection and segmentation using deep learning models. Methods and Materials: We evaluated deep learning models for lesion detection (EfficientNet, ResNet34, DenseNet) and segmentation (nnUNetv2, UNet, ResUNet, ResAttUNet). Performance metrics included F1 score, precision, recall, Area Under the Curve (AUC), and Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC). Pairwise t-tests compared segmentation accuracy. Radiomic analyses compared lesions segmented by deep learning to manual segmentations. Results: EfficientNet achieved the highest detection performance, with an F1 score of 0.82, precision of 0.88, recall of 0.79, and AUC of 0.71. Among segmentation models, nnUNetv2 performed best, achieving a DSC of 0.74, precision of 0.73, and recall of 0.83. Pairwise t-tests showed that nnUNetv2 outperformed other models in segmentation accuracy (p < 0.01). Clinically, nnUNetv2 also demonstrated superior specificity for lesion detection (0.90) compared to the other models. All models performed similarly in distinguishing diffuse and focal lesions, predicting weight-bearing lesions, and identifying lesion locations, although nnUNetv2 had higher specificity. Sensitivity was highest for rib lesions and lowest for spine lesions across all models. Conclusions: EfficientNet and nnUNetv2 were the top-performing models for detection and segmentation, respectively. Radiomic features derived from deep learning-based segmentations were comparable to manual segmentations, supporting clinical applicability. Further analysis of lesion detection and spatial distribution underscores the models' potential for improving diagnostic workflows and patient outcomes.
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.