Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41960994›Full record

Observational studyRadiology. Imaging cancer2026

Evaluating an AI-driven Triaging Workflow for MRI-based Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: A Simulation Study.

Jasper J Twilt, Anindo Saha, Joeran S Bosma, Gianluca Giannarini, Anwar R Padhani, Derya Yakar, Mattijs Elschot, Jeroen Veltman, Jurgen Fütterer, Henkjan Huisman and 2 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Radiology. Imaging cancer, 2026. 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. Article
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

12 authors.

Jasper J TwiltMinimally Invasive Image-Guided Intervention Center, Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9673-6770
Anindo SahaMinimally Invasive Image-Guided Intervention Center, Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5091-9862
Joeran S BosmaDiagnostic Image Analysis Group, Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6315-124X
Gianluca GiannariniUrology Unit, Santa Maria della Misericordia University Hospital, Udine, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6995-246X
Anwar R PadhaniPaul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5830-5777
Derya YakarDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4920-9441
Mattijs ElschotDepartment of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-8056-9103
Jeroen VeltmanDepartment of Radiology, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, Hengelo, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6824-3987
Jurgen FüttererMinimally Invasive Image-Guided Intervention Center, Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6800-2879
Henkjan HuismanDiagnostic Image Analysis Group, Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6753-3221
Maarten de RooijDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7257-7907
PI-CAI Consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose To simulate an artificial intelligence (AI)-driven triaging workflow in which an AI system, using high-confidence thresholds, assesses a subset of prostate MRI examinations for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), compare the assessment with stand-alone radiologists, and evaluate the number of examinations triaged by the AI to estimate potential workload reduction. Materials and Methods Data from an international AI confirmatory study (February 2022-November 2023) were used in this retrospective study. MRI examinations of 500 men with suspected csPCa from four European centers were included. Exclusion criteria were prior prostate treatment, prior csPCa, or considerable imaging artifacts. AI-triaging thresholds were calibrated on 100 examinations. The AI system assessed examinations exceeding high-specificity or high-sensitivity thresholds, with the remaining examinations deferred to radiologists. The workflow was simulated on 400 examinations, including examinations from an external site, incorporating assessments from 62 radiologists. Reference standards were histopathology and/or 3 or more years of follow-up. Sensitivity and specificity of the triaging workflow were compared with the conventional workflow using multireader, multicase analysis of variance. Results Among the 400 patients (median age, 66 years; IQR, 60-69 years) included for testing, radiologists achieved a sensitivity of 89.4% (95% CI: 85.8, 93.1) and specificity of 57.7% (95% CI: 52.3, 63.1). The AI-driven pathway maintained comparable sensitivity (89.0%; 95% CI: 85.0, 93.0;

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMagnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsTriageWorkflowAgedClinical RelevanceComputer SimulationHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityComparative StudiesDiagnosisLocalizationMRIOncologyProstate

Identifiers

PMID41960994
PMCPMC13231206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.