ArticleScientific reports2026
Dissecting self-supervised learning strategies for transfer learning in MRI prostate cancer diagnosis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Deep learning (DL) has driven major progress in medical imaging diagnosis. However, its effectiveness is often limited by the scarcity of large annotated datasets and the poor generalization of models to small, out-of-distribution (OOD) data. Self-supervised learning (SSL) and transfer learning offer promising solutions: SSL enables representation learning from unlabeled data via pretext tasks, while transfer learning helps adapt models to new domains with limited labeled data. In this study, we evaluate SSL-based strategies for detecting and segmenting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in MRI. We investigate the impact of key design decisions-including model architectures, pretext tasks, contrastive learning methods, and downstream tasks-using one medium-sized pre-training dataset (PI-CAI) and two small OOD target datasets: Prostate158 and ChiPCa. We propose a three-stage training pipeline that includes SSL, supervised pre-training, and a final fine-tuning on the target small labeled dataset. Results show that our proposed full three-stage training pipeline achieves the most consistent performance in both detection and segmentation on Prostate158, whose csPCa area distribution is closer to the pre-training dataset. In contrast, for ChiPCa, whose csPCa distribution differs from the pre-training dataset, the full strategy is the best for detection but suboptimal for segmentation, where partial training stages can provide better results. In general, either UNETR or UNet can serve well for detection, but UNet architecture reports consistently better results for segmentation. These findings provide practical guidance on when multi-stage SSL pipelines are most beneficial and how dataset similarity and architectural choice influence prostate segmentation performance.
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.