ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
An evaluation of artificial intelligence assisted prostate biopsy reporting in the Articulate Pro study.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Robot-assisted biopsy a bibliometric analysis of global trends, hotspots, and emerging frontiers (2000-2025).Journal of robotic surgery · 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
34 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Prospective evidence on clinical utility of AI in histopathology is limited. We conducted a prospective study across three National Health Service specialist centres in England to evaluate a commercially available AI system for assistance in prostate biopsy reporting. Of 1613 cases, 1049 were reported with AI-assistance. Endpoints evaluated diagnostic impact, clinical impact and workflow. Staged AI assistance (second-read) prompted case review and changed the initial diagnosis or Grade Group of 21/386(5.4%) patients, 5 of these (1.3%) potentially affecting clinical management. AI-assisted workflows showed significantly reduced mean turnaround time with concurrent-read compared to unassisted-read by 30.1 h (p < 0.0001) at one site with significant reductions in cases requiring immunohistochemistry in all sites (Odds Ratios 0.50,0.43,0.33, p < 0.0001, p = 0.01, p = 0.001). This first prospective, multi-centric evaluation demonstrates AI can enhance diagnostic accuracy, shorten turnaround times and reduce unnecessary testing. Scaled across the NHS, such improvements could improve patient care, deliver faster diagnoses and optimise laboratory efficiency, supporting adoption.
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.