ArticleBJU international2026
Deep-learning segmentation to guide bladder neck recognition in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
Article in BJU international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Intraoperative surgical anatomy through the eyes of artificial intelligence: the silent tutor.BJU international · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo develop a deep-learning segmentation model for bladder neck dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and evaluate its effectiveness in improving anatomical recognition in surgical videos across surgeons with varying levels of experience. SUBJECTS, PATIENTS AND
methodsFrom April 2022 to March 2023, we collected 25 RARP procedures at Fujita Health University, specifically extracting bladder neck dissection segments. Three architectures (U-Net, U-Net++, and DeepLabv3+) were trained on 979 annotated frames from 10 RARP procedures performed by a single expert surgeon. The best-performing model was adopted as the base model for two-step, entropy-based active learning. Step one included selecting informative frames from the same videos used for the base model, with finer temporal sampling, to construct the prototype model. In step two, diverse procedures from additional surgeons were used to build the final model. Segmentation performance was evaluated using Intersection over Union (IoU; mean IoU [mIoU]). Clinical utility was assessed by quantifying the recognition of anatomical structures with and without guidance from the segmentation model among seven urologists (two expert surgeons and five novice surgeons). Anatomical recognition was evaluated by comparing annotation time and the average IoU of the bladder and prostate (bpIoU).
resultsDeepLabv3+ with LogCosh loss achieved the highest performance (mIoU = 0.815, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.699-0.931) and was adopted as the base model. Active learning improved generalisability, increasing mIoU on the novice evaluation set from 0.709 (95% CI 0.584-0.833) to 0.713 (95% CI 0.586-0.839). Regarding the assessment of clinical utility, among novice surgeons, model guidance significantly reduced annotation time by 28 s and improved annotation quality of bpIoU by 0.124. No significant changes were observed among expert surgeons.
conclusionThe developed segmentation model enhanced the speed and performance of anatomical recognition, particularly for novice surgeons, and may support surgical education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.