ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Multicentre evaluation of artificial intelligence risk classification for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer on biparametric MRI.
Article in European radiology, 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
objectivesTo compare a commercially available artificial intelligence (AI) risk-classification system with PI-RADS for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) on prostate MRI. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective multicentre, multivendor diagnostic accuracy study included men who underwent prostate MRI and histopathologic verification between 2014 and 2025. Index tests were DeepHealth Prostate Suite AI risk category and radiologist-assigned PI-RADS; the reference standard was International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group ≥ 2. Patient-level non-inferiority testing, receiver operating characteristic analysis, lesion-level free-response receiver operating characteristic analysis, and patient-level bootstrap confidence intervals were used. Workflow support analyses modeled biopsy-avoidance strategies and AI-based risk stratification within PI-RADS 3 lesions.
resultsAfter exclusions, 787 men (median age, 70 years; interquartile range, 64-75) were evaluated; 380 (48.3%) had csPCa. AI sensitivity was non-inferior to PI-RADS at the patient level (97.6% vs 92.6%; p < 0.001) but not at the lesion level (78.8% vs 88.8%; p = 0.98). Patient-level area under the curve was higher for AI than PI-RADS (0.80 vs 0.77; difference, 0.032; 95% confidence interval, 0.001-0.064; p = 0.043). A targeted PI-RADS 3 strategy avoided 18.9% of biopsies while maintaining 98.4% sensitivity. Among PI-RADS 3 lesions, AI upgraded 93.1% of csPCa-positive lesions and assigned a low risk to 24.1% of benign lesions.
conclusionThe AI system was non-inferior for patient-level sensitivity but not lesion-level sensitivity. AI risk classification is best positioned as decision support for biopsy triage, particularly in PI-RADS 3 lesions. KEY POINTS: Question Can three-tier artificial intelligence risk classification support prostate MRI biopsy triage in men while preserving detection of clinically significant prostate cancer? Findings Artificial intelligence had non-inferior patient-level sensitivity and higher patient-level discrimination than PI-RADS, but lower lesion-level sensitivity at the predefined threshold. Clinical relevance Artificial intelligence risk categories can complement PI-RADS by supporting high-sensitivity biopsy triage, especially for equivocal PI-RADS 3 lesions, while radiologists retain responsibility for lesion mapping.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42800842What 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.