ArticleEuropean urology open science2026
Finding Holes: Pathologist-Level Performance Using AI for Cribriform Morphology Detection in Prostate Cancer.
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.
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.
- Article
- The impact of tissue detection on diagnostic artificial intelligence algorithms in prostate digital pathology.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.