ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2026
An artificial intelligence solution for evaluation of prostate needle core biopsy specimens: impact in a non-specialist setting.
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The diagnosis of prostate cancer rests on the histopathological evaluation of prostate needle core biopsy specimens (NCBS) supplemented by immunohistochemistry as required. Because of the well-known interobserver variability in diagnosis and grading of prostate cancer, we have studied the capability of a commercially available artificial intelligence (AI) solution to aid in the diagnosis of PCa in a non-expert setting. For this, 2828 H&E stained NCBS slides from 249 cases were digitised to produce whole slide images (WSI) and subjected to second-read analysis using the Ibex prostate AI solution. Ground truth was established by a combination of primary pathologists' diagnoses supplemented by immunohistochemistry and external expert revision. For cancer detection, the AI solution achieved a false negative rate of 0.2%, significantly lower than that of the reporting pathologists (1.5%). False positive rates were similar for reporting pathologists (2.3%) and prostate AI solution (3.1%). A Gleason pattern 4 alert was raised by the AI solution in 2 of 29 cases (7%) of cases originally diagnosed as Gleason score 3 + 3, both of which were upheld after expert review. Because of the therapeutic consequences, the triggering of a "higher than 3 + 3 Gleason score" alert represents a useful safety feature. In conclusion, our findings support the growing evidence that by enhancing diagnostic accuracy AI-based diagnostic solutions can play a pivotal role in alleviating the increasing workload faced by pathologists due to the rising global incidence of prostate cancer.
Identifiers
42234114What 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.