Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Explainable Anatomy-Guided AI for Prostate MRI: Foundation Models and In Silico Clinical Trials for Virtual Biopsy-based Risk Assessment

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read An anatomy-aware foundation model pipeline for prostate MRI can stratify cancer risk on T2-weighted images alone, beating the 2024 CHAIMELEON challenge winners (AUC 0.79 vs 0.72) and materially improving clinician accuracy and speed in a…

desk verdict Solid incremental AI-radiology pipeline with a useful gland-prior result, but the reader-study design can't support the causal 'virtual biopsy' claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.17971 v1 pith:5X5FIKBS submitted 2025-05-23 eess.IV cs.CV

Danial Khan , Zohaib Salahuddin , Yumeng Zhang , Sheng Kuang , Shruti Atul Mali , Henry C. Woodruff , Sina Amirrajab , Rachel Cavill
show 6 more authors
Eduardo Ibor-Crespo Ana Jimenez-Pastor Adrian Galiana-Bordera Paula Jimenez Gomez Luis Marti-Bonmati Philippe Lambin
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords prostatecancerMRIfoundationmodelUMedPTanatomicalpriorscounterfactualexplainabilityinsilicoclinicaltrialriskstratification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that a fully automatic MRI pipeline can stratify prostate cancer risk well enough to act as a 'virtual biopsy': an nnU-Net segments the prostate gland and zones, a fine-tuned UMedPT Swin Transformer foundation model classifies risk, and a VAE-GAN generates counterfactual heatmaps that show which image regions drove the decision. On the held-out CHAIMELEON test set, the three-scale ensemble with gland priors reached AUC 0.79 and composite score 0.76, surpassing the 2024 challenge winners (AUC 0.72, score 0.67). In a paired multi-center in-silico trial with 20 clinicians, adding AI support raised mean diagnostic accuracy from 0.72 to 0.77, Cohen's kappa from 0.43 to 0.53, and cut average review time from 5.3 to 3.1 minutes per case. The anatomical gland mask is the load-bearing enhancement: it improved AUC from 0.69 to 0.72 on its own, while adding clinical variables or zonal masks did not help. The authors' intended contribution is a transparent, automated, routine-MRI-only alternative to biopsy-based risk assessment that supports rather than replaces the human reader.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the anatomical prior: a gland segmentation mask from the nnU-Net module, appended as an extra input channel to the fine-tuned UMedPT Swin Transformer foundation model, a multi-task pretrained medical encoder whose 2D slice features are aggregated by a trainable grouper into a volume-level embedding. The mask steers the model's attention to the prostate gland; adding it raised AUC from 0.69 to 0.72, whereas adding zonal masks or clinical variables such as age and PSA density did not help. The best configuration averages predicted probabilities across three patch scales (160, 192, 224) to reach AUC 0.79, and the composite CHAIMELEON score weights AUC, balanced accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. The third component, a 3D VAE-GAN, perturbs latent codes along classifier gradients to synthesize counterfactual images, and subtracting original from counterfactual images localizes decision-driving regions inside the gland, giving voxel-level explanations consistent with PI-RADS signal characteristics.

What would settle it

Run the trained ensemble on an independent, multi-center cohort with whole-gland prostatectomy, rather than biopsy, grade groups as the reference standard, and include benign and clinically insignificant cases; if the AUC there falls materially below the reported 0.79, or if the in-silico accuracy gain fails to replicate in a blinded crossover where clinicians are told the AI's confidence, the virtual-biopsy claim would be falsified. A cheaper check: have expert radiologists mark lesions on the counterfactual-analyzed test cases and measure whether the highlighted regions coincide with the lesion contours beyond chance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that supplying a fine-tuned medical foundation model with an explicit anatomical prior, the automatically segmented prostate gland mask added as an extra input channel, materially improves prostate cancer risk classification from T2-weighted MRI, and that the resulting predictions are both more accurate and faster to use than unaided human reading. Concretely, gland priors lifted the UMedPT model's AUC from 0.69 to 0.72, and averaging the predicted probabilities of the gland-prior models at patch sizes 160, 192, and 224 reached AUC 0.79 and composite score 0.76 on the held-out 125-case test set, outperforming the 2024 CHAIMELEON challenge winners at AUC 0.72 and score 0.67. In the paired prospective in-silico trial, 20 clinicians from 11 institutions improved from 0.72 to 0.77 mean accuracy and from kappa = 0.43 to kappa = 0.53 agreement when AI predictions were shown, while per-case review time dropped from 5.3 to 3.1 minutes, roughly 40%. The authors read this as evidence that anatomy-aware foundation models with counterfactual explanations can serve as interpretable 'virtual biopsies' for risk stratification on routine MRI.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the biopsy-based ISUP grade group labels in CHAIMELEON are reliable enough ground truth for risk, when the paper itself cites that 25 to 50% of prostate cancer cases need Gleason re-scoring after prostatectomy and pathologist disagreement can reach 30%.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Gland priors are the key gain: AUC rises from 0.69 to 0.72 with a single model, and the multi-scale ensemble reaches AUC 0.79 and composite score 0.76, both above the 2024 challenge winners' 0.72 and 0.67.
  • AI as decision support outperforms both unaided clinicians (accuracy 0.72) and AI alone (0.75), reaching 0.77 with assistance, so the intended role is a second reader, not a replacement.
  • Reading time falls from 5.3 to 3.1 minutes per case with assistance, a roughly 40% efficiency gain across 20 clinicians at 11 sites.
  • The pipeline runs on T2-weighted MRI only, so it needs no contrast agent and no manual contouring, which is what makes a fully automated virtual-biopsy workflow feasible in principle.
  • Counterfactual heatmaps concentrate changes within the gland around low-intensity regions that match the appearance of high-grade tumors on T2-weighted images, aligning the model's explanations with PI-RADS criteria.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the models were trained only on cancer-positive cases, performance on screening cohorts that include benign and clinically insignificant disease is untested; the virtual-biopsy framing would be strongest if the ensemble also separated cancer from no-cancer, which this study does not show.
  • The counterfactual heatmaps were not reviewed by expert radiologists, so whether the explanations actually build the trust they are intended to build remains an open question that a dedicated reader study could answer.
  • A direct test of the modality hypothesis: if DWI and ADC channels were added, the 17 of 54 misclassified Gleason score 7 low-risk cases are the ones most likely to flip, since they are exactly the cases where T2-weighted contrast is known to be ambiguous.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes a fully automated pipeline for prostate cancer risk stratification from T2-weighted MRI, combining an nnU-Net segmentation module, a UMedPT-based classification module with optional gland/zonal priors and clinical variables, and a VAE-GAN counterfactual explainability module. The system is trained on PI-CAI for segmentation and on the CHAIMELEON dataset for classification, then evaluated on a held-out CHAIMELEON test set. The authors report a best ensemble AUC of 0.79 and composite score of 0.76, compared with the 2024 CHAIMELEON challenge winners' AUC of 0.72 and score of 0.67. In a paired in-silico trial with 20 clinicians, AI assistance was associated with higher mean accuracy (0.72 to 0.77), higher Cohen's kappa (0.43 to 0.53), and reduced reading time (5.3 to 3.1 minutes per case). The conclusion is that anatomy-aware foundation models with counterfactual explainability can support prostate cancer risk assessment as virtual biopsies.

Significance. If the classification result is robust, the paper is a useful technical contribution: it assembles a credible segmentation-plus-classification pipeline, uses public datasets, provides detailed hyperparameter reporting, and compares directly with a challenge benchmark. The segmentation Dice scores (0.92-0.95) are strong, and the held-out test evaluation is a step beyond training-set-only reporting. However, the central clinical-utility claim rests on a non-randomized, fixed-order reader study with no control arm and no inferential statistics, and the risk labels inherit biopsy-grading noise that the manuscript itself documents. With proper uncertainty quantification and a more cautious interpretation of the reader study, the pipeline would be a solid benchmark; as it stands, the causal and superiority claims outrun the evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Prospective in silico Trial] The paired design is unaided-first then aided-second for every reader, with no control group, no randomization of order, and no per-reader paired analysis. The 60-day washout does not eliminate case recall or learning effects, and the second read is always the aided read, so the observed +0.05 accuracy, +0.10 kappa, and -2.2 minutes per case cannot be causally attributed to AI assistance. The authors should either provide a randomized crossover or a control-arm analysis, or report per-reader paired differences with confidence intervals and significance tests and correspondingly soften the causal language in the abstract and conclusion.
  2. [Discussion] The binary risk labels are derived from biopsy-based ISUP grade groups, and the manuscript itself states that 25 to 50% of prostate cancer cases require Gleason score adjustment after prostatectomy and that pathologist discordance can reach 30%. This label noise is not quantified in training or evaluation, and the reported AUC and clinician gains assume the biopsy labels are dependable. A sensitivity analysis, such as noise-injection experiments or an evaluation restricted to cases with prostatectomy-confirmed grading, is needed to support the 'virtual biopsy' framing; otherwise the risk-stratification accuracy statement should be explicitly conditional on the reference standard.
  3. [Classification Results] All model comparisons in Tables 1 and 2 are point estimates from a single held-out test set, with no confidence intervals for AUC, balanced accuracy, or the composite score, and no correction for the many configurations explored. The ensemble AUC of 0.79 versus the challenge winner's 0.716 may not be a significant difference. Bootstrap confidence intervals, or DeLong tests for paired AUC comparisons, and a statement of how many models were evaluated on the test set are necessary before claiming superiority.
  4. [Explainability] The counterfactual heatmaps in Figures 7 and 8 are generated from gradients of the same classifier and are not quantitatively compared with lesion annotations or expert assessments; the manuscript acknowledges that expert radiologist evaluation was not performed. The abstract's claim that heatmaps 'reliably highlighted lesions' is therefore not supported by the reported evidence. The authors should either add a quantitative localization evaluation, such as overlap between thresholded heatmaps and lesion masks, or restrict the interpretability claim to qualitative illustration.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] The word 'primarely' in the paragraph on benign prostatic hyperplasia should be 'primarily.'
  2. [Methods, VAE-GAN] The loss-weight sentence contains a stray hyphen before 10^-2 for the adversarial weight and duplicates the phrase 'measures measures'; these should be corrected.
  3. [Methods, Counterfactual Explanations] The counterfactual equation is typeset unclearly; please use standard gradient notation, e.g., x_cf = D(z_orig + alpha * grad_z f_pred(z_orig)), and define all symbols explicitly.
  4. [Evaluation Metrics] Cohen's kappa is first defined as agreement between the model's predictions and ground truth, but the in-silico trial reports it as inter-rater agreement among clinicians; clarify which quantity is computed and how.
  5. [Abstract and Methods] The abstract states the classification dataset had 617 cases, while the Methods first reports 636 cases before filtering to 429/63/125; make the filtering step explicit or adjust the wording for consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the pipeline's metrics are empirical evaluations on held-out data, not derivations that reduce to their inputs.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical deep-learning pipeline paper, not a mathematical derivation, and I found no step where a claimed prediction or result is equivalent to its input by construction. The classification AUC, composite score, and segmentation Dice are computed on held-out test sets: segmentation is evaluated on the PI-CAI 30% test split, and classification is evaluated on the CHAIMELEON held-out 20% test split after model selection on the validation set. The comparison to the 2024 CHAIMELEON challenge winners uses externally reported scores on the same challenge platform, so that comparison is not self-referential. The gland-prior ablation compares variants of the same model on the same held-out set, which is a standard controlled experiment rather than a circular prediction. The counterfactual heatmaps are generated from the classifier's own gradients, so they describe the model's decision regions by construction, but the paper does not use them as independent evidence of clinical accuracy; the interpretability claim is precisely that these heatmaps reflect the model's behavior, which is what a gradient-based method is designed to do. The in-silico trial is a paired before/after reader study with no control arm and possible recall effects, but that is a study-design limitation, not circularity: the reported accuracy and kappa values are observed clinician responses, not identities derived from the AI predictions. The paper itself states important limitations, including biopsy-based Gleason label noise (25-50% of cases require score adjustment after prostatectomy and pathologist discordance can reach 30%), lack of external domain adaptation, and the fact that counterfactual explanations were not evaluated by expert radiologists; these are validity concerns but they do not make any result circular. The only self-citations (references 19 and 25, both by the same group on counterfactual interpretability) are used as background context for explainability methods and are not load-bearing for the central accuracy or utility claims. I therefore find no circular step requiring a quote-based reduction and assign a score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The pipeline is empirical and introduces no new physical entities. Its central results rest on tuned hyperparameters and domain assumptions about label reliability, T2w-only sufficiency, transferability of segmentation, and the validity of the in-silico reader design. The free parameters are model-selection choices; the most consequential unstated one is the decision threshold used to compute accuracy and clinician-assistance effects.

free parameters (6)
  • BCE positive class weight = 2.699
    Selected via grid search on the CHAIMELEON validation set (Appendix A3); changes the effective decision boundary for the high-risk class.
  • UMedPT training hyperparameters = LR 5e-4, weight decay 1e-4, 200 epochs, gradient accumulation 32
    Grid search on validation (Appendix A3); part of model selection, not derived from theory.
  • VAE-GAN loss weights = w_KL=1e-6, w_perceptual=1e-3, w_adversarial=1e-2
    Chosen by hand and used to train the explainability module; affects which counterfactual heatmaps are produced.
  • Counterfactual step size alpha = not reported
    Controls latent perturbation magnitude; no exact value or sensitivity analysis given, so the heatmaps are not fully reproducible.
  • Decision threshold for risk classification = not stated
    Accuracy and clinician assistance depend on the threshold used to turn predicted probabilities into high-risk calls; threshold selection is not described.
  • Multiscale ensemble patch sizes and weights = 224, 192, 160 with equal averaging
    Selected based on validation performance; final test result is for a configuration chosen after validation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption CHAIMELEON ISUP grade group labels are accurate enough to serve as ground truth for risk classification.
    The paper uses these labels as targets while acknowledging biopsy sampling error and up to 30% pathologist discordance (Discussion, Gleason grading paragraph).
  • domain assumption T2-weighted MRI alone carries sufficient information to separate GGG 1-2 from GGG 3-5 cancers.
    Only T2w images were used; DWI and ADC were excluded due to incomplete data, but the virtual biopsy claim depends on the sufficiency of this sequence.
  • domain assumption The paired in-silico trial with a 60-day washout approximates real clinical adoption of AI assistance.
    The same 20 clinicians read the same 125 cases in both arms, no significance testing was reported, and no external cohort was used.
  • domain assumption Counterfactual latent perturbations reveal decision-driving image regions.
    Heatmaps are computed from the classifier's own gradients by construction; they were not validated against expert lesion annotations.
  • domain assumption The nnU-Net segmentation trained on PI-CAI transfers to CHAIMELEON MRIs without meaningful distribution shift.
    Automatic gland masks were used as priors for classification; 11 of 617 cases required manual correction and one failed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Explainable Anatomy-Guided AI for Prostate MRI: Foundation Models and In Silico Clinical Trials for Virtual Biopsy-based Risk Assessment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5X5FIKBS

@misc{pith2026250517971,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Explainable Anatomy-Guided AI for Prostate MRI: Foundation Models and In Silico Clinical Trials for Virtual Biopsy-based Risk Assessment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5X5FIKBS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.17971}
}
read the original abstract

We present a fully automated, anatomically guided deep learning pipeline for prostate cancer (PCa) risk stratification using routine MRI. The pipeline integrates three key components: an nnU-Net module for segmenting the prostate gland and its zones on axial T2-weighted MRI; a classification module based on the UMedPT Swin Transformer foundation model, fine-tuned on 3D patches with optional anatomical priors and clinical data; and a VAE-GAN framework for generating counterfactual heatmaps that localize decision-driving image regions. The system was developed using 1,500 PI-CAI cases for segmentation and 617 biparametric MRIs with metadata from the CHAIMELEON challenge for classification (split into 70% training, 10% validation, and 20% testing). Segmentation achieved mean Dice scores of 0.95 (gland), 0.94 (peripheral zone), and 0.92 (transition zone). Incorporating gland priors improved AUC from 0.69 to 0.72, with a three-scale ensemble achieving top performance (AUC = 0.79, composite score = 0.76), outperforming the 2024 CHAIMELEON challenge winners. Counterfactual heatmaps reliably highlighted lesions within segmented regions, enhancing model interpretability. In a prospective multi-center in-silico trial with 20 clinicians, AI assistance increased diagnostic accuracy from 0.72 to 0.77 and Cohen's kappa from 0.43 to 0.53, while reducing review time per case by 40%. These results demonstrate that anatomy-aware foundation models with counterfactual explainability can enable accurate, interpretable, and efficient PCa risk assessment, supporting their potential use as virtual biopsies in clinical practice.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Miller, K. D. et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2022. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 72 , 409–436 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    B., Soerjomataram, I., Efstathiou, J

    Culp, M. B., Soerjomataram, I., Efstathiou, J. A., Bray, F. & Jemal, A. Recent Global Patterns in Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates. Eur Urol 77 , 38–52 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Simon, R. M. et al. Does Prostate Size Predict the Development of Incident Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Men with Mild to No Current Symptoms? Results from the REDUCE Trial. Eur Urol 69 , 885–891 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Cohen, R. J. et al. Central zone carcinoma of the prostate gland: a distinct tumor type with poor prognostic features. J Urol 179 , 1762–7; discussion 1767 (2008)

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Boschheidgen, M. et al. MRI grading for the prediction of prostate cancer aggressiveness. Eur Radiol 32 , 2351–2359 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Van Poppel, H. et al. Prostate-specific Antigen Testing as Part of a Risk-Adapted Early Detection Strategy for Prostate Cancer: European Association of Urology Position and Recommendations for 2021. Eur Urol 80 , 703–711 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Rosario, D. J. et al. Short term outcomes of prostate biopsy in men tested for cancer by prostate specific antigen: prospective evaluation within ProtecT study. BMJ 344 , d7894 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    & van der Kwast, T

    Atallah, C., Toi, A. & van der Kwast, T. H. Gleason grade 5 prostate cancer: sub-patterns and prognosis. Pathology 53 , 3–11 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Hashmi, A. A. et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)-Grade Grouping in Prostatic Adenocarcinoma and its Prognostic Implications. Cancer Invest 40 , 211–218 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Palumbo, P. et al. Biparametric (bp) and multiparametric (mp) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) approach to prostate cancer disease: a narrative review of current debate on dynamic contrast enhancement. Gland Surg 9 , 2235–2247 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Eldred-Evans, D. et al. Rethinking prostate cancer screening: could MRI be an alternative screening test? Nat Rev Urol 17 , 526–539 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Saha, A. et al. Artificial intelligence and radiologists in prostate cancer detection on MRI (PI-CAI): an international, paired, non-inferiority, confirmatory study. Lancet Oncol 25 , 879–887 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Lambin, P. et al. Radiomics: the bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 14 , 749–762 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Mehralivand, S. et al. Deep learning-based artificial intelligence for prostate cancer detection at biparametric MRI. Abdom Radiol (NY) 47 , 1425–1434 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Zhao, L. et al. Predicting clinically significant prostate cancer with a deep learning approach: a multicentre retrospective study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 50 , 727–741 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Moor, M. et al. Foundation models for generalist medical artificial intelligence. Nature 616 , 259–265 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Schäfer, R. et al. Overcoming data scarcity in biomedical imaging with a foundational multi-task model. Nat Comput Sci 4 , 495–509 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    & Batmanghelich, K

    Singla, S., Eslami, M., Pollack, B., Wallace, S. & Batmanghelich, K. Explaining the black-box smoothly—A counterfactual approach. Med. Image Anal. 84 , 102721 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Salahuddin, Z. et al. Counterfactuals and Uncertainty-Based Explainable Paradigm for the Automated Detection and Segmentation of Renal Cysts in Computed Tomography Images: A Multi-Center Study. arXiv [eess.IV] (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Fang, Y. et al. DiffExplainer: Unveiling Black Box Models Via Counterfactual Generation. arXiv [cs.CV] (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    OpenChallenge Championship Training Dataset for Prostate Cancer

    CHAIMELEON Consortium. OpenChallenge Championship Training Dataset for Prostate Cancer. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.11454910 (2024)

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    F., Kohl, S

    Isensee, F., Jaeger, P. F., Kohl, S. A. A., Petersen, J. & Maier-Hein, K. H. nnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation. Nat. Methods 18 , 203–211 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Isensee, F. et al. NnU-Net revisited: A call for rigorous validation in 3D medical image segmentation. arXiv [cs.CV] (2024) doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2404.09556

    2024 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    Omri, N. et al. Association between PSA density and pathologically significant prostate cancer: The impact of prostate volume. Prostate 80 , 1444–1449 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    C., Chatterjee, A

    Salahuddin, Z., Woodruff, H. C., Chatterjee, A. & Lambin, P. Transparency of deep neural networks for medical image analysis: A review of interpretability methods. Comput. Biol. Med. 140 , 105111 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Nicke, T. et al. Tissue concepts: Supervised foundation models in computational pathology. Comput Biol Med 186 , 109621 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Krishna, S. et al. Comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System versions 1 and 2 for the Detection of Peripheral Zone Gleason Score 3 + 4 = 7 Cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 209 , W365–W373 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Sun, Z. et al. A multicenter study of artificial intelligence-aided software for detecting visible clinically significant prostate cancer on mpMRI. Insights into Imaging 14 , 1–12 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    https://radiologyassistant.nl/abdomen/prostate/prostate-cancer-pi-rads-v2-1

    Prostate Cancer - PI-RADS v2.1. https://radiologyassistant.nl/abdomen/prostate/prostate-cancer-pi-rads-v2-1

  22. [30]

    & Chang, H

    Mun, Y., Paik, I., Shin, S.-J., Kwak, T.-Y. & Chang, H. Yet Another Automated Gleason Grading System (YAAGGS) by weakly supervised deep learning. NPJ Digit Med 4 , 99 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Shipitsin, M. et al. Identification of proteomic biomarkers predicting prostate cancer aggressiveness and lethality despite biopsy-sampling error. British Journal of Cancer 111 , 1201–1212 (2014). Appendix A1. Augmentation Parameters Table A1: MONAI Augmentation Parameters Aug...

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.