↓ Skip to main content

Does deep learning software improve the consistency and performance of radiologists with various levels of experience in assessing bi-parametric prostate MRI?

Overview of attention for article published in Insights into Imaging, March 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
Title
Does deep learning software improve the consistency and performance of radiologists with various levels of experience in assessing bi-parametric prostate MRI?
Published in
Insights into Imaging, March 2023
DOI 10.1186/s13244-023-01386-w
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aydan Arslan, Deniz Alis, Servet Erdemli, Mustafa Ege Seker, Gokberk Zeybel, Sabri Sirolu, Serpil Kurtcan, Ercan Karaarslan

Abstract

To investigate whether commercially available deep learning (DL) software improves the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scoring consistency on bi-parametric MRI among radiologists with various levels of experience; to assess whether the DL software improves the performance of the radiologists in identifying clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). We retrospectively enrolled consecutive men who underwent bi-parametric prostate MRI at a 3 T scanner due to suspicion of PCa. Four radiologists with 2, 3, 5, and > 20 years of experience evaluated the bi-parametric prostate MRI scans with and without the DL software. Whole-mount pathology or MRI/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy was the reference. The area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) was calculated for each radiologist with and without the DL software and compared using De Long's test. In addition, the inter-rater agreement was investigated using kappa statistics. In all, 153 men with a mean age of 63.59 ± 7.56 years (range 53-80) were enrolled in the study. In the study sample, 45 men (29.80%) had clinically significant PCa. During the reading with the DL software, the radiologists changed their initial scores in 1/153 (0.65%), 2/153 (1.3%), 0/153 (0%), and 3/153 (1.9%) of the patients, yielding no significant increase in the AUROC (p > 0.05). Fleiss' kappa scores among the radiologists were 0.39 and 0.40 with and without the DL software (p = 0.56). The commercially available DL software does not increase the consistency of the bi-parametric PI-RADS scoring or csPCa detection performance of radiologists with varying levels of experience.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 2 20%
Lecturer 1 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 10%
Unknown 6 60%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 2 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 10%
Unknown 6 60%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 December 2023.
All research outputs
#2,899,592
of 24,995,611 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#147
of 1,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,334
of 409,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#4
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,995,611 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,165 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 409,516 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.