Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40307379›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Effective reduction of unnecessary biopsies through a deep-learning-assisted aggressive prostate cancer detector.

Nuno M Rodrigues, José Guilherme de Almeida, Ana Sofia Castro Verde, Ana Mascarenhas Gaivão, Carlos Bireiro, Inês Santiago, Joana Ip, Sara Belião, Celso Matos, Leonardo Vanneschi and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Beyond Total PSA: Clinical Significance of S2,3PSA% in Reducing Unnecessary Prostate Biopsies.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Nuno M Rodrigues *Computational Clinical Imaging Group, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal. nuno.mvrodrigues1@gmail.com.
José Guilherme de Almeida *Computational Clinical Imaging Group, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal.
Ana Sofia Castro VerdeComputational Clinical Imaging Group, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal.
Ana Mascarenhas GaivãoRadiology Department, Champalimaud Clinical Center, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal.
Carlos BireiroRadiology Department, Champalimaud Clinical Center, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal.
Inês SantiagoRadiology Department, Champalimaud Clinical Center, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal.
Joana IpRadiology Department, Champalimaud Clinical Center, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal.
Sara BeliãoRadiology Department, Champalimaud Clinical Center, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal.
Celso MatosComputational Clinical Imaging Group, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal.
Leonardo VanneschiNOVA Information Management School (NOVA IMS), Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Campus de Campolide, 1070-312, Lisboa, Portugal.
Manolis TsiknakisInstitute of Computer Science, Foundation for Research and Technology Hellas (FORTH), 700 13, Heraklion, Greece.
Kostas MariasDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Hellenic Mediterranean University, 710 04, Heraklion, Greece.
Daniele ReggeDepartment of Radiology, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, Strada Provinciale 142 Km 3.95, 10060, Candiolo, Italy.
Sara SilvaLASIGE, Faculty of Sciences, LASIGE, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, 1749--016 Lisboa, Portugal, Lisbon, Portugal.
ProCAncer-I Consortium
Nickolas PapanikolaouComputational Clinical Imaging Group, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal.

Funding

Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia 10.54499/2021.05322.BD (https://doi.org/10.54499/2021.05322.BD)Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia IMS UIDB/04152/2020 (https://doi.org/10.54499/UIDB/04152/2020)Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia UIDB/00408/2020 (https://doi.org/10.54499/UIDB/00408/2020)Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia UIDP/00408/2020 (https://doi.org/10.54499/UIDP/00408/2020)Horizon 2020 952159
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite being one of the most prevalent cancers, prostate cancer (PCa) shows a significantly high survival rate, provided there is timely detection and treatment. Currently, several screening and diagnostic tests are required to be carried out in order to detect PCa. These tests are often invasive, requiring either a biopsy (Gleason score and ISUP) or blood tests (PSA). Computational methods have been shown to help this process, using multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) data to detect PCa, effectively providing value during the diagnosis and monitoring stages. While delineating lesions requires a high degree of experience and expertise from the radiologists, being subject to a high degree of inter-observer variability, often leading to inconsistent readings, these computational models can leverage the information from mpMRI to locate the lesions with a high degree of certainty. By considering as positive samples only those that have an ISUP≥2 we can train aggressive index lesion detection models. The main advantage of this approach is that, by focusing only on aggressive disease, the output of such a model can also be seen as an indication for biopsy, effectively reducing unnecessary biopsy screenings. In this work, we utilize both the highly heterogeneous ProstateNet dataset, and the PI-CAI dataset, to develop accurate aggressive disease detection models.

Indexed as

Deep LearningProstatic NeoplasmsUnnecessary ProceduresBiopsyHumansMaleMultiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasm GradingProstate-Specific AntigenProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID40307379
PMCPMC12043811

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.