ReviewAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Deep learning classification of significant prostate cancer on MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Abdominal radiology (New York), 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep learning (DL) image analysis of prostate MRI can be integrated into the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway to improve biopsy decision making, reduce radiologist interpretation time, and decrease inter-reader variability. In this paper, we systematically review the current literature on DL classification of clinically significant prostate cancer detected on magnetic resonance imaging and perform a meta-analysis of reported external validation performance metrics. A literature search was performed on PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify studies describing end-to-end DL classification models that distinguish clinically significant prostate cancer (defined as Gleason Grade Group ≥ 2) on biparametric or multiparametric MRI. Information on the data sources used for model training and external validation, reference standards, imaging sequences, DL architectures, model inputs, the use of gradient-weighted class activation mapping (GRAD-CAM) or saliency maps, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was extracted. Out of 387 potentially relevant studies, 7 were included in the final meta-analysis. 6 studies were retrospective in design and performed external validation using data from different institutions. One study employed both retrospective and prospective designs, validating the model on the prospective dataset. The pooled patient-level AUC was 0.83 [0.80, 0.86]. While current performance is promising, future research should prioritize prospective clinical trials, standardize reporting measures, and include direct comparisons to experienced radiologists. To ensure the development of widely generalizable models, future studies should evaluate performance on shared, large, and diverse datasets, enabling meaningful cross-study comparisons.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42364040What 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.