Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 48 references

Influence of High-Performance Image-to-Image Translation Networks on Clinical Visual Assessment and Outcome Prediction: Utilizing Ultrasound to MRI Translation in Prostate Cancer

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read US-to-MRI translation can power prostate cancer risk prediction, but only 76 of 186 radiomic features survive.

desk verdict A useful multi-network benchmark whose headline numbers depend on an unverified registration step and a circular classification test. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18109 v2 pith:ZXDLKL2C submitted 2025-01-30 eess.IV cs.CVphysics.bio-ph

Mohammad R. Salmanpour , Amin Mousavi , Yixi Xu , William B Weeks , Ilker Hacihaliloglu This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CVphysics.bio-ph
keywords image-to-imagetranslationprostatecancerultrasoundtoMRIsynthesisradiomicssyntheticevaluationPix2Pixdiffusionmodelsoutcomeprediction
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

Image-to-image translation aims to turn cheap ultrasound into MRI-like images, and this paper asks whether the result is clinically trustworthy for prostate cancer. On 794 patients and ten networks, 2D-Pix2Pix produced the most similar synthetic MRI ($SSIM = 0.855 \pm 0.032$), beating diffusion and unpaired GAN methods. Similarity, however, overstates usefulness: only 76 of 186 standardized radiomic features survived translation with acceptable correlation, and seven physicians could always tell synthetic from real MRI, often because true lesions disappeared or fake bright regions appeared. The most concrete gain is automated risk classification: classifiers trained and tested on synthetic MRI reached about 0.93 accuracy and AUC, beating ultrasound and approaching real-MRI performance of 0.95. The paper thus separates global image quality from diagnostic feature preservation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a three-stage evaluation stack built around aligned US/MRI volumes. Ten networks—paired (Pix2Pix), unpaired GAN variants (CycleGAN, DiscoGAN, DualGAN, GcGAN), reconstruction-style 3D models (AutoEncoder, UNET), and diffusion models (ContourDiff, Med-DDPM)—translate each US volume into a synthetic MRI. Second, 186 standardized radiomic features are extracted from the segmented prostate using the same masks for original and synthetic MRI, and a Spearman rank correlation between original and synthetic feature values assigns each feature to one of three groups: preserved by most networks, preserved only by high-SSIM networks, or lost by all networks. Third, synthetic images are scored by seven physicians on eight questions and then fed to a principal-component-analysis-plus-Random-Forest radiomics classifier and a ResNet50 deep classifier. The rank-correlation grouping is what turns raw SSIM scores into a statement about which diagnostically relevant information survives translation.

What would settle it

Compute point-to-point registration error on the dataset's tracked biopsy cores or other landmarks, then re-run the radiomic rank correlations and SSIM comparisons excluding the worst-registered cases; if the correlations shift dramatically or the 76-preserved/93-lost split changes, the central comparison would not stand. A simpler visual check is also available: the paper's Figure 2 shows a synthetic hyperintensity with no counterpart in the original MRI and a true lesion not preserved—if coregistering those two images with a different algorithm makes the bright spot coincide with a real structure, that discrepancy is registration-driven rather than a synthesis failure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a dissociation between global similarity and clinically meaningful fidelity. 2D-Pix2Pix outperformed all nine other networks on MAE, MSE, SSIM, and PSNR ($P<0.01$), with average SSIM $0.855\pm 0.032$, but radiomic-feature analysis showed the same network preserved only 76 of 186 standardized features at a correlation threshold of 0.50, while 93 features remained undetectable by any network. Seven experienced physicians, despite seeing images with SSIM above 0.85, consistently distinguished synthetic from original MRI and rated diagnosis as harder, citing artifacts; one representative case shows a false-positive hyperintensity introduced by synthesis and a true lesion omitted. Despite these limitations, radiomics-based classification of high- versus low-risk prostate cancer using synthetic MRI, with principal component analysis plus a Random Forest classifier, achieved average accuracy and AUC of about 0.93, exceeding the 0.88/0.87 achieved with ultrasound and approaching the 0.95/0.94 of real MRI. The paper concludes translation networks need improvement at lesion-level fidelity, but synthetic MRI already has measurable value over the source modality for downstream outcome prediction.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative comparison rests on the assumption that the ultrasound and MRI volumes are aligned well enough that a voxel or texture feature in one volume corresponds to the same tissue in the other. The paper reports that US and MRI were aligned by clinical collaborators and that identical masks were used for feature extraction, but it provides no registration-error analysis; if misalignment is substantial, the SSIM, radiomic correlations, and synthetic-versus-original comparisons all lose meaning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If high SSIM can coexist with loss of half of radiomic features, SSIM and PSNR alone are insufficient acceptance criteria for synthetic images in clinical use; feature-preservation reporting should be part of any translation benchmark.
  • Networks that preserve Group-1 features even at lower SSIM, such as CycleGAN variants, may be worth using for specific tasks, so the best network depends on which features the downstream task actually needs.
  • Radiomics classifiers can be trained and tested entirely on synthetic MRI and still outperform the original ultrasound, suggesting a deployment path where translation acts as a preprocessing step to improve risk stratification.
  • The 93 Group-3 features that no network recovers define a concrete target: any future network that lifts those correlations above 0.50 would be a measurable advance in lesion-level fidelity.
  • Because the radiomics framework consistently beat ResNet50 on this dataset, the paper implies that for moderate-sized cohorts hand-crafted radiomics plus dimensionality reduction is currently more reliable than deep feature learning.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to use the same 186-feature rank-correlation grouping as a standardized 'radiomic preservation profile' for any future US-to-MRI network, so results across studies can be compared feature-by-feature rather than by SSIM alone.
  • Because the paper's alignment relies on clinical collaboration without a reported registration-error analysis, an independent check using the tracked biopsy-core coordinates in the dataset would clarify how much of the measured feature loss is due to translation rather than residual misalignment.
  • The false-positive and false-negative lesion discrepancies in the qualitative results suggest a direct clinical probe: asking radiologists to mark suspicious regions in synthetic versus original MRI and comparing those marks against biopsy-confirmed lesions would quantify how often synthesis alters the actionable finding.
  • If the synthetic-consistent training trick generalizes, a natural next step is to test whether classifiers trained on synthetic MRI transfer to real MRI at test time, or whether the benefit disappears when the domain changes.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript benchmarks ten 2D/3D image-to-image translation networks for ultrasound-to-MRI synthesis in 794 prostate cancer patients, using four quantitative metrics, radiomic feature correlations, qualitative assessment by seven physicians, and downstream classification. The main reported findings are that 2D-Pix2Pix achieves the highest SSIM (0.855±0.032), that 76 of 186 radiomic features are preserved after translation according to Spearman correlation, and that classifiers trained and tested on synthetic MRI reach accuracy/AUC around 0.93, outperforming classifiers based on US. The authors conclude that supervised paired translation currently outperforms diffusion-based models on global similarity but that low-level clinically relevant features remain imperfectly preserved.

Significance. If the quantitative claims were validated, the study would provide a useful comparative benchmark for I2I models in prostate US-to-MRI synthesis, combining global metrics with radiomics and clinician evaluation. The use of 794 patients, ten networks, publicly shared code, and standardized radiomics extraction (ViSERA/IBSI) are strengths. The radiomics comparison is performed between synthetic and real MRI, so it is not itself circular; the classification section, however, uses a train-and-test-on-synthetic protocol that measures internal consistency rather than clinical diagnostic value. The significance of the reported network ranking is conditional on an unverified US–MRI registration assumption, which has not been demonstrated in the manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, §2.3] The entire voxel-level comparison depends on the co-registration of US and MRI. Section 2.1 states only that images 'were aligned by clinical collaborators' and then resampled, and Section 2.3 notes that 'identical masks were used to extract these features from different images.' No registration method, transformation model, or residual-error metric is reported. Under transrectal-probe deformation, residual misalignment of even a few voxels can change SSIM and shift radiomic features to different tissue, so the reported network ranking (Fig. 1), the 76/186 preservation count, and the Group 1–3 radiomics stratification may partly reflect alignment error rather than network performance. The Discussion's limitation paragraph does not mention this. Please report a registration-error analysis or otherwise demonstrate that voxel and mask correspondences are sufficiently accurate for the claimed voxel-level and feature-level comparisons.
  2. [§2.4, §3.4, Discussion] The claim that synthetic MRI improves classification over US is not supported by the current protocol. Experiments C3, C6, C11, and other synthetic-image combinations train and test the classifier on synthetic MRI produced by the same I2I networks; as the Discussion states, using 'consistent synthetic data for training and testing with PCA and RandF eliminated the domain gap.' This setup measures internal reproducibility of the synthetic domain, not diagnostic value on real clinical data, so the reported ~0.93 accuracy/AUC cannot be compared clinically with US-based classification. Please add external evaluation in which models trained on synthetic images are tested on held-out real MRI or real US, and models trained on real images are tested on synthetic images, with explicit confusion matrices.
  3. [§3.1] The statement that 2D-Pix2Pix 'significantly outperformed all other generative models' is based on pairwise paired t-tests across the ten networks without correction for multiple comparisons. With nine pairwise comparisons per metric, the reported P<0.01 should be adjusted, or a global test with post-hoc correction should be reported. This does not necessarily change the ranking, but it is required to support the 'substantially outperformed' claim in the abstract and conclusion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.3] The count of Group 2 features is internally inconsistent: the text says 76 radiomic features, but the listed subcategory counts (5 IS, 17 IH, 2 IVH, 26 GLCM, 6 NGLDM, 12 GLRLM, 3 GLSZM, 3 GLDZM, 1 NGTDM) sum to 75, and 18 + 76 + 93 = 187 rather than the stated total of 186. Please correct these numbers.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract says 2D-Pix2Pix outperformed 'the other 7 networks,' but ten networks were evaluated; this should read 'the other nine networks.'
  3. [§2.4] The heading '2.4. Classification Analysis' duplicates the numbering of the earlier '2.4. Qualitative Analysis' section, and the qualitative section refers to questions in 'Table 1, rows 2–9' when the questions appear in Table 2.
  4. [§3.2] The qualitative results text refers to Q7, Q8, and Q9, while Table 2 reports only eight questions (Q1–Q8), and the question labels are inconsistently mapped; please align the question numbering between text and table.
  5. [§3.3] The citation of Koo and Li [46] concerns intraclass correlation coefficients, not Spearman correlation coefficients; a source for the correlation cutoffs, or a direct justification of the 0.50 threshold, should be provided.
  6. [§3.1] The threshold 'SSIM > 0.85' is used to define high-performance networks, but 2D-Pix2Pix's mean SSIM is 0.855 with a standard deviation of 0.032, so some folds lie below the threshold; please clarify how the threshold was applied in the radiomics analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's benchmark claims are empirical comparisons, and its self-citations supply tooling or context rather than load-bearing derivations.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims are empirical benchmark results, not results derived from their own inputs by construction. SSIM, PSNR, MAE, and MSE are computed between synthetic MRI and original MRI; radiomics preservation is measured by Spearman correlations between features extracted from synthetic and original MRI; and classification accuracy/AUC are reported for models trained and tested on real MRI, US, and synthetic MRI. The radiomics grouping uses a stated correlation threshold (0.50) and is an analytic categorization, not a fitted parameter that forces the reported 76/186 count. The classification experiments that train and test on synthetic data do not reduce to a tautology: they are an empirical demonstration of domain-consistent synthetic data utility, and the paper separately reports real-MRI and US classifiers for comparison. The only self-citations, ViSERA [43] and the radiomics dictionary [47], are used as software/context references and are not invoked as the basis for the benchmark outcomes. The lack of a reported registration-error analysis is a validity limitation, but it is not circularity because the comparisons are not defined in terms of the quantities they purport to establish. No load-bearing circular step was identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities or mechanisms are proposed. The central comparison imports several hand-chosen thresholds: SSIM > 0.85 to label networks high-performance, Spearman rho > 0.50 to separate preserved from degraded radiomics features, and the UCLA 1-3 versus 4-5 risk split. The most expensive unstated assumptions are registration accuracy and the transferability of original MRI masks to synthetic images.

free parameters (3)
  • SSIM high-performance threshold = 0.85
    Used to define high-performance networks for RF grouping and to select Pix2Pix results; appears in the abstract and in Section 3.3 and Figure 3.
  • Spearman correlation threshold = 0.50
    Koo and Li's cut for moderate correlation, adopted in Section 3.3 to stratify radiomic features into Groups 1, 2, and 3.
  • UCLA score risk split = 1-3 low risk, 4-5 high risk
    The paper converts UCLA scores into binary labels for classification in Section 2.1; this hand-chosen split affects all classification results.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption US and MRI volumes are accurately co-registered after clinical alignment.
    All voxel-wise metrics, paired training, and radiomics comparisons assume corresponding anatomy; stated in Section 2.1 preprocessing.
  • domain assumption Prostate segmentation masks from original MRI are anatomically valid for synthetic MRI.
    RF extraction uses identical masks on original and synthetic MRI per Section 2.3; if translation shifts anatomy, features are mismatched.
  • domain assumption Radiomic features extracted by ViSERA following IBSI standards are clinically meaningful biomarkers.
    RFs are used to infer preservation of diagnostically relevant information in Section 2.3.
  • domain assumption T2-weighted MRI is an appropriate target for US-to-MRI synthesis.
    The dataset contains only T2-weighted MRI per Section 2.1, so conclusions about clinical utility are limited to this sequence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Influence of High-Performance Image-to-Image Translation Networks on Clinical Visual Assessment and Outcome Prediction: Utilizing Ultrasound to MRI Translation in Prostate Cancer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZXDLKL2C

@misc{pith2026250118109,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Influence of High-Performance Image-to-Image Translation Networks on Clinical Visual Assessment and Outcome Prediction: Utilizing Ultrasound to MRI Translation in Prostate Cancer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZXDLKL2C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18109}
}
read the original abstract

Purpose: This study examines the core traits of image-to-image translation (I2I) networks, focusing on their effectiveness and adaptability in everyday clinical settings. Methods: We have analyzed data from 794 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa), using ten prominent 2D/3D I2I networks to convert ultrasound (US) images into MRI scans. We also introduced a new analysis of Radiomic features (RF) via the Spearman correlation coefficient to explore whether networks with high performance (SSIM>85%) could detect subtle RFs. Our study further examined synthetic images by 7 invited physicians. As a final evaluation study, we have investigated the improvement that are achieved using the synthetic MRI data on two traditional machine learning and one deep learning method. Results: In quantitative assessment, 2D-Pix2Pix network substantially outperformed the other 7 networks, with an average SSIM~0.855. The RF analysis revealed that 76 out of 186 RFs were identified using the 2D-Pix2Pix algorithm alone, although half of the RFs were lost during the translation process. A detailed qualitative review by 7 medical doctors noted a deficiency in low-level feature recognition in I2I tasks. Furthermore, the study found that synthesized image-based classification outperformed US image-based classification with an average accuracy and AUC~0.93. Conclusion: This study showed that while 2D-Pix2Pix outperformed cutting-edge networks in low-level feature discovery and overall error and similarity metrics, it still requires improvement in low-level feature performance, as highlighted by Group 3. Further, the study found using synthetic image-based classification outperformed original US image-based methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18109 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Four examples of synthetic MRI images provided by 2D-Pix2Pix with SSIMs>0.85. Rows show Ultrasound, Original MRI, Synthetic MRI, difference between original and synthetic MRI images. For Patient 3, the orange circle highlights a false￾positive hyperintensity introduced in the synthetic MRI, while the green circle marks a true lesion present in the original MRI that was not preserved in the synthetic version. 3.2. Qu… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. , enabling a clear visual comparison of their performance across a range of thresholds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. ROC curves for the deep-learning and radiomics frameworks (C1–C22; definitions provided in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Translational Bioinformatics for Diagnostic and Prognostic Prediction of Prostate Cancer in the Next-Generation Sequencing Era,

    J. Chen, D. Zhang, W. Yan, D. Yang and B. Shen, "Translational Bioinformatics for Diagnostic and Prognostic Prediction of Prostate Cancer in the Next-Generation Sequencing Era," BioMed Res. Int, vol. 2013, p. 901578, 2013

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Prostate Cancer Review: Genetics, Diagnosis, Treatment Options, and Alternative Approaches,

    M. Sekhoacha, K. Riet, P. Motloung, L. Gumenku, A. Adegoke and S. Mashele, "Prostate Cancer Review: Genetics, Diagnosis, Treatment Options, and Alternative Approaches," Molecules, vol. 27, no. 17, p. 5730, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Current development and applications of super -resolution ultrasound imaging,

    Q. Chen, H. Song, J. Yu and K. Kim, "Current development and applications of super -resolution ultrasound imaging," Sensors, vol. 21, no. 7, p. 2417, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Deep Learning in Medical Ultrasound Analysis: A Review,

    S. Liu, Y. Wang, X. Yang, B. Lei, L. Liu, S. Li, D. Ni and T. Wang, "Deep Learning in Medical Ultrasound Analysis: A Review," Engineering, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 261 -275, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Image -to-image translation: Methods and applications,

    Y. Pang, J. Lin, T. Qin and Z. Chen, "Image -to-image translation: Methods and applications," IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, vol. 24, pp. 3859 -3881, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Self -supervised ultrasound to MRI fetal brain image synthesis,

    J. Jiao, A. Namburete, A. Papageorghiou and J. Noble, "Self -supervised ultrasound to MRI fetal brain image synthesis," IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 39, no. 12, pp. 4413 -24, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Research on obtaining pseudo CT images based on stacked generative adversarial network,

    H. Sun, Z. Lu, R. Fan, W. Xiong, K. Xie, X. Ni and J. Yang, "Research on obtaining pseudo CT images based on stacked generative adversarial network," Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery, vol. 11, no. 5, p. 1983, 2021

    work page 1983

  8. [8]

    Image Translation of Breast Ultrasound to Pseudo Anatomical Display by CycleGAN,

    L. Barkat, M. Freiman and H. Azhari, "Image Translation of Breast Ultrasound to Pseudo Anatomical Display by CycleGAN," Bioengineering , vol. 10, no. 3, p. 388, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Ultrasound to X-ray synthesis generative attentional network (UXGAN) for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis,

    W. Jiang, C. Yu, X. Chen, Y. Zheng and C. Bai, "Ultrasound to X-ray synthesis generative attentional network (UXGAN) for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis," Ultrasonics, vol. 126, p. 106819, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Automatic GAN -based MRI volume synthesis from US volumes: a proof of concept investigation,

    D. Vukovic, I. Ruvinov, M. Antico, M. Steffens and D. Fontanarosa, "Automatic GAN -based MRI volume synthesis from US volumes: a proof of concept investigation," Scientific Reports, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 21716, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Unified brain MR -ultrasound synthesis using multi -modal hierarchical representations,

    R. Dorent, N. Haouchine, F. Kogl, S. Joutard, P. Juvekar, E. Torio, A. Golby, S. Ourselin, S. Frisken, T. Vercauteren and T. Kapur, "Unified brain MR -ultrasound synthesis using multi -modal hierarchical representations," in In International conference on medical image computi...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Image Quality Assessment through FSIM, SSIM, MSE and PSNR —A Comparative Study,

    U. Sara, M. Akter and M. Uddin, "Image Quality Assessment through FSIM, SSIM, MSE and PSNR —A Comparative Study," Journal of Computer and Communications, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 8 -18, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    A visual saliency-induced index for perceptual image quality assessment,

    L. Zhang , Y. Shen and H. Li, "A visual saliency-induced index for perceptual image quality assessment," IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 23, no. 10, p. 4270 –4281, 2014

    2014

  6. [14]

    FSIM: A Feature Similarity Index for Image Quality Assessment,

    L. Zhang, L. Zhang, X. Mou and D. Zhang, "FSIM: A Feature Similarity Index for Image Quality Assessment," IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 2378 -2386, 2011

    2011

  7. [15]

    Image quality assessment based on gradient similarity,

    A. Liu, W. Lin and M. Narwaria, "Image quality assessment based on gradient similarity," IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 21, no. 4, p. 1500 –1512, 2012

    2012

  8. [16]

    Edge strength similarity for image quality assessment,

    X. Zhang, X. Feng, W. Wang and W. Xue, "Edge strength similarity for image quality assessment," IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 20, no. 4, p. 319 –322, 2013

    2013

  9. [17]

    Deep Generative Adversarial Networks for Image-to-Image Translation: A Review,

    A. Alotaibi, "Deep Generative Adversarial Networks for Image-to-Image Translation: A Review," Symmetry , vol. 12, no. 10, p. 1705, 2020. 12

    2020

  10. [18]

    Radiomics: the facts and the challenges of image analysis,

    S. Rizzo, F. Botta, S. Raimondi, D. Origgi, C. Fanciullo, A. Morganti and M. Bellomi, "Radiomics: the facts and the challenges of image analysis," European Radiology Experimental, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1 -8, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    State of the art of radiomic analysis in the clinical management of prostate cancer: A systematic review,

    S. Ghezzo, C. Bezzi, L. Presotto, P. Mapelli, V. Bettinardi, A. Savi, I. Neri, E. Preza, A. Gajate, F. De Cobelli and P. Scifo, "State of the art of radiomic analysis in the clinical management of prostate cancer: A systematic review," Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology, ...

    2022

  12. [20]

    AutoRadiomics: A Framework for Reproducible Radiomics Research,

    P. Woznicki, F. Laqua, T. Bley and B. Baeßler, "AutoRadiomics: A Framework for Reproducible Radiomics Research," Frontiers in radiology, vol. 2, p. 919133, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Predicting cancer outcomes with radiomics and artificial intelligence in radiology,

    K. Bera, N. Braman , A. Gupta, V. Velcheti and A. Madabhushi, "Predicting cancer outcomes with radiomics and artificial intelligence in radiology," Nature reviews Clinical oncology, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 132 -146, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Magnetic resonance radiomics for prediction of extraprostatic extension in non- favorable intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients,

    A. Losnegård, L. Reisæter, O. Halvorsen, J. Jurek, J. Assmus, J. Arnes, A. Honoré, J. Monssen, E. Andersen, I. Haldorsen and A. Lundervold, "Magnetic resonance radiomics for prediction of extraprostatic extension in non- favorable intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer pa...

    2020

  15. [23]

    Integrating CT - based radiomic model with clinical features improves long-term prognostication in high-risk prostate cancer.,

    J. Ching, S. Lam, C. Lam, A. Lui, J. Kwong, A. Lo, J. Chan, J. Cai, W. Leung and S. Lee, "Integrating CT - based radiomic model with clinical features improves long-term prognostication in high-risk prostate cancer.," Frontiers in Oncology, vol. 13, p. 1060687, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Multiparametric MRI- based radiomics model to predict pelvic lymph node invasion for patients with prostate cancer,

    H. Zheng, Q. Miao, Y. Liu, S. Mirak, M. Hosseiny, F. Scalzo, S. Raman and K. Sung, "Multiparametric MRI- based radiomics model to predict pelvic lymph node invasion for patients with prostate cancer," European radiology, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 5688 -569, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Formal methods for prostate cancer Gleason score and treatment prediction using radiomic biomarkers,

    L. Brunese, F. Mercaldo, A. Reginelli and A. Santone, "Formal methods for prostate cancer Gleason score and treatment prediction using radiomic biomarkers," Magnetic resonance imaging, vol. 66, pp. 165 -175, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Classification of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer on Multi-Parametric MRI: A Validation Study Comparing Deep Learning and Radiomics,

    T. Castillo , M. Arif, M. Starmans, W. Niessen, C. Bangma, I. Schoots and J. Veenland, "Classification of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer on Multi-Parametric MRI: A Validation Study Comparing Deep Learning and Radiomics," Cancers, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 12, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    A systematic review of deep learning methods for the classification and segmentation of prostate cancer on magnetic resonance images,

    R. Nayagam and D. Selvathi, "A systematic review of deep learning methods for the classification and segmentation of prostate cancer on magnetic resonance images," International Journal of Imaging Systems and Technology, vol. 34, no. 2, p. e23064, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Multi-class classification of Prostate cancer MR images based ob UCLA score using REGNETY320 model,

    M. Rajesh and B. Chandrasekar, "Multi-class classification of Prostate cancer MR images based ob UCLA score using REGNETY320 model," ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 90-101, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Textured-based deep learning in prostate cancer classification with 3T multiparametric MRI: comparison with PI-RADS-based classification,

    L. Yongkai, H. Zheng, Z. Liang, Q. Miao,, W. Brisbane, L. Marks, S. Raman, R. Reiter, G. Yang and K. Sung, "Textured-based deep learning in prostate cancer classification with 3T multiparametric MRI: comparison with PI-RADS-based classification," Diagnostics, vol. 11, no. 10, ...

    2021

  22. [30]

    Development of a Deep Learning Algorithm for the Histopathologic Diagnosis and Gleason Grading of Prostate Cancer Biopsies: A Pilot Study,

    O. Kott, D. Linsley, A. Amin, A. Karagounis, C. Jeffers, D. Golijanin, T. Serre and B. Gershman, "Development of a Deep Learning Algorithm for the Histopathologic Diagnosis and Gleason Grading of Prostate Cancer Biopsies: A Pilot Study," European urology focus, vol. 7, no. 2, ...

    2021

  23. [31]

    Prostate Cancer Detection Using Deep Learning and Traditional Techniques,

    S. Iqbal , G. Siddiqui, A. Rehman, L. Hussain, T. Saba, U. Tariq and A. Abbasi, "Prostate Cancer Detection Using Deep Learning and Traditional Techniques," IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 27085 -27100, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Detecting prostate cancer using deep learning convolution neural network with transfer learning approach,

    A. Abbasi, L. Hussain, I. Awan, I. Abbasi, A. Majid, M. Nadeem and Q. Chaudhary, "Detecting prostate cancer using deep learning convolution neural network with transfer learning approach," Cognitive Neurodynamics, vol. 14, p. 523 –533, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    High -accuracy prostate cancer pathology using deep learning,

    Y. Tolkach, T. Dohmgörgen, M. Toma and G. Kristiansen, "High -accuracy prostate cancer pathology using deep learning," Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 2, p. 411 –418, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Convolutional neural networks for prostate cancer recurrence prediction,

    N. Kumar, R. Verma, A. Arora, A. Kumar, S. Gupta, A. Sethi and P. Gann, "Convolutional neural networks for prostate cancer recurrence prediction," Digital Pathology (SPIE), vol. 10140, pp. 106 -117, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Prostate cancer detection using deep convolutional neural networks,

    S. Yoo, I. Gujrathi, M. Haider and F. Khalvati, "Prostate cancer detection using deep convolutional neural networks," Scientific reports, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 19518, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Prostate MRI and Ultrasound With Pathology and Coordinates of Tracked Biopsy (Prostate-MRI-US-Biopsy) (version 2) [Data set],

    S. Natarajan, A. Priester, D. Margolis, J. Huang and L. Marks, "Prostate MRI and Ultrasound With Pathology and Coordinates of Tracked Biopsy (Prostate-MRI-US-Biopsy) (version 2) [Data set]," Cancer Imaging Arch, vol. 10, p. 7937, 2020. 13

    2020

  29. [37]

    ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012,

    J. Barentsz, J. Richenberg, R. Clements, P. Choyke, S. Verma, G. Villeirs, O. Rouviere, V. Logager and J. Fütterer, "ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012," European radiology, vol. 22, pp. 746 -757, 2012

    2012

  30. [38]

    Targeted prostate biopsy to select men for active surveillance: do the Epstein criteria still apply?,

    J. Hu, E. Chang, S. Natarajan, D. Margolis, M. Macairan, P. Lieu, J. Huang, G. Sonn, F. Dorey and L. Marks, "Targeted prostate biopsy to select men for active surveillance: do the Epstein criteria still apply?," The Journal of urology, vol. 192, no. 2, pp. 385 -390, 2014

    2014

  31. [39]

    The UCLA Prostate Cancer Index: development, reliability, and validity of a health-related quality of life measure,

    M. Litwin, R. Hays, A. Fink, P. Ganz, B. Leake and R. Brook, "The UCLA Prostate Cancer Index: development, reliability, and validity of a health-related quality of life measure," Medical care, vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 1002-1012, 1998

    1998

  32. [40]

    A review on generative adversarial networks for image generation,

    V. de Souza, B. Marques, H. Batagelo and J. Gois, "A review on generative adversarial networks for image generation," Computers & Graphics, vol. 114, pp. 13 -25, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Conditional diffusion models for semantic 3D brain MRI synthesis,

    Z. Dorjsembe, H. Pao, S. Odonchimed and F. Xiao, "Conditional diffusion models for semantic 3D brain MRI synthesis," IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 4084 -4093, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Contourdiff: Unpaired image translation with contour -guided diffusion models,

    Y. Chen, N. Konz, H. Gu, H. Dong, Y. Chen, L. Li, J. Lee and M. Mazurowski, "Contourdiff: Unpaired image translation with contour -guided diffusion models," arXiv preprint, pp. 1-11, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    ViSERA: visualized & standardized environment for radiomics analysis -a shareable, executable, and reproducible workflow generator,

    M. Salmanpour, I. Shiri, M. Hosseinzadeh, H. Zaidi, S. Ashrafinia, M. Oveisi and A. Rahmim, "ViSERA: visualized & standardized environment for radiomics analysis -a shareable, executable, and reproducible workflow generator," in 2023 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium, Medical Ima...

    2023

  36. [44]

    Optimal feature selection and machine learning for prediction of outcome in Parkinson’s disease,

    M. Salmanpour, A. Saberi, M. Shamsaei and A. Rahmim, "Optimal feature selection and machine learning for prediction of outcome in Parkinson’s disease," in Journal of Nuclear Medicine , 2020

    2020

  37. [45]

    Improved prostate cancer diagnosis using a modified ResNet50-based deep learning architecture,

    F. Talaat, S. El-Sappagh, K. Alnowaiser and E. Hassan, "Improved prostate cancer diagnosis using a modified ResNet50-based deep learning architecture," BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, vol. 24, no. 1, p. 23, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research,

    T. Koo and M. Li, "A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research," J Chiropr Med, vol. 15, no. 2, p. 155 –163, 2016

    2016

  39. [47]

    Biological and Radiological Dictionary of Radiomics Features: Addressing Understandable AI Issues in Personalized Prostate Cancer; Dictionary version P M1. 0,

    M. Salmanpour, S. Amiri, S. Gharibi, A. Shariftabrizi, Y. Xu, W. Weeks, A. Rahmim and I. Hacihaliloglu, "Biological and Radiological Dictionary of Radiomics Features: Addressing Understandable AI Issues in Personalized Prostate Cancer; Dictionary version P M1. 0," arXiv prepri...

    2024

  40. [48]

    A novel loss function to reproduce texture features for deep learning -based MRI-to-CT synthesis,

    S. Yuan, Y. Liu, R. Wei, J. Zhu, K. Men and J. Dai, "A novel loss function to reproduce texture features for deep learning -based MRI-to-CT synthesis," Med Phys, p. 1–12., 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.