Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42004835›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2026

Finding Holes: Pathologist-Level Performance Using AI for Cribriform Morphology Detection in Prostate Cancer.

Kelvin Szolnoky, Anders Blilie, Nita Mulliqi, Toyonori Tsuzuki, Hemamali Samaratunga, Matteo Titus, Xiaoyi Ji, Sol Erika Boman, Einar Gudlaugsson, Svein Reidar Kjosavik and 16 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European urology open science, 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. Article
  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

26 authors.

Kelvin SzolnokyDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Anders BlilieDepartment of Pathology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Nita MulliqiDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Toyonori TsuzukiDepartment of Surgical Pathology, School of Medicine, Aichi Medical University, Nagoya, Japan.
Hemamali SamaratungaAquesta Uropathology and University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Matteo TitusDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Xiaoyi JiDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Sol Erika BomanDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Einar GudlaugssonDepartment of Pathology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Svein Reidar KjosavikThe General Practice and Care Coordination Research Group, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
José AsenjoDepartment of Pathology, SYNLAB, Madrid, Spain.
Marcello GambacortaDepartment of Pathology, SYNLAB, Brescia, Italy.
Paolo LibrettiDepartment of Pathology, SYNLAB, Brescia, Italy.
Marcin BraunDepartment of Pathology, Chair of Oncology, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.
Radzisław Kordek1st Department of Urology, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.
Roman Łowicki1st Department of Urology, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.
Brett DelahuntMalaghan Institute of Medical Research, Wellington, New Zealand.
Kenneth A IczkowskiDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of California - Davis Health, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Theo van der KwastLaboratory Medicine Program and Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Geert J L H van LeendersDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Katia R M LeiteDepartment of Urology, Laboratory of Medical Research, University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil.
Chin-Chen PanDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Emiel Adrianus Maria JanssenDepartment of Pathology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Martin EklundDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lars EgevadDepartment of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kimmo KartasaloDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, SciLifeLab, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cribriform morphology in prostate cancer is a histological feature that indicates poor prognosis and contraindicates active surveillance. However, it remains underreported and subject to significant interobserver variability among pathologists. Objective: We aimed to develop and validate an artificial intelligence (AI)-based system to improve cribriform pattern detection. Design setting and participants: We created a deep learning model using an EfficientNetV2-S encoder with multiple instance learning for end-to-end whole-slide classification. The model was trained on 640 digitised prostate core needle biopsies from 430 patients, collected across three cohorts. It was validated internally (261 slides from 171 patients) and externally (266 slides, 104 patients from three independent cohorts). Internal validation cohorts included laboratories or scanners from the development set, while external cohorts used completely independent instruments and laboratories. Annotations were provided by three expert uropathologists with known high concordance. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We assessed model performance using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and Cohen's κ with 95% confidence intervals calculated through bootstrapping. Additionally, we conducted an inter-rater analysis and compared the model's performance against nine expert uropathologists on 88 slides from the internal validation cohort. Results and limitations: The model showed strong internal validation performance (AUC: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95, 0.99; Cohen's κ: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.72, 0.89) and robust external validation (AUC: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.86, 0.93; Cohen's κ: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.45, 0.64). In our inter-rater analysis, the model achieved the highest average agreement (Cohen's κ: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.57, 0.74), outperforming all nine pathologists whose Cohen's κ ranged from 0.35 to 0.62. Limitations include the retrospective design and that the cross-scanner reproducibility and inter-rater analyses were conducted exclusively on internal validation data, potentially overestimating performance in these analyses. Conclusions: Our AI model demonstrates pathologist-level performance for cribriform morphology detection in prostate cancer. This approach could enhance diagnostic reliability, standardise reporting, and improve treatment decisions for patients with prostate cancer.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceCribriformProstate cancer

Identifiers

PMID42004835
PMCPMC13090957

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.