ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Deep learning-based prostate cancer diagnosis on MRI with hip prostheses: artifact and sequence effects.
Article 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the impact of hip prosthesis-induced artifacts on the diagnostic performance of deep learning (DL)-based prostate cancer diagnosis on MRI and to investigate the optimal MRI sequence combination for DL analysis.
methodsThis retrospective study included prostate MRI examinations performed between 2017 and 2023. Three DL-based image classification models were developed using examinations from patients without hip prostheses, with different input combinations: T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) alone, T2WI plus diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and apparent diffusion coefficient maps, and T2WI plus dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Test sets consisted of patients with hip prostheses who underwent prostate biopsy within one year after MRI and were stratified by artifact severity (mild, moderate, severe), as well as a matched test set of patients without hip prostheses. Diagnostic performance for Gleason score ≥ 7 prostate cancer was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared with PI-RADS assessments.
resultsThe test sets included 416 examinations with and 2,080 matched examinations without hip prostheses. All DL models showed reduced diagnostic performance in the presence of moderate-to-severe susceptibility artifacts compared with examinations without prostheses (AUC range, 0.62-0.71 vs. 0.74-0.81, respectively). Across moderate-to-severe artifact categories, PI-RADS outperformed all DL models (AUC range, 0.77-0.79).
conclusionDL-based models exhibited limited robustness to hip prosthesis-induced susceptibility artifacts, whereas radiologist performance remained relatively preserved. These findings highlight current limitations of DL-based prostate cancer diagnosis in patients with hip prostheses and underscore the continued importance of expert radiologist interpretation.
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.