Cited by 133Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentAI in cancer detection

Interactive explainable deep learning model informs prostate cancer diagnosis at MRI

Open access
Hamm, Charlie A., Baumgärtner, Georg L., Biessmann, Felix, Beetz, Nick L., Hartenstein, Alexander, Savic, Lynn J., Froböse, Konrad, Dräger, Franziska +8 more·2023·Radiology

Abstract

Background Clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis at MRI requires accurate and efficient radiologic interpretation. Although artificial intelligence may assist in this task, lack of transparency has limited clinical translation. Purpose To develop an explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) model for clinically significant PCa diagnosis at biparametric MRI using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) features for classification justification. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included consecutive patients with histopathologic analysis–proven prostatic lesions who underwent biparametric MRI and biopsy between January 2012 and December 2017. After image annotation by two radiologists, a deep learning model was trained to detect the index lesion; classify PCa, clinically significant PCa (Gleason score ≥ 7), and benign lesions (eg, prostatitis); and justify classifications using PI-RADS features. Lesion- and patient-based performance were assessed using fivefold cross validation and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Clinical feasibility was tested in a multireader study and by using the external PROSTATEx data set. Statistical evaluation of the multireader study included Mann-Whitney U and exact Fisher-Yates test. Results Overall, 1224 men (median age, 67 years; IQR, 62–73 years) had 3260 prostatic lesions (372 lesions with Gleason score of 6; 743 lesions with Gleason score of ≥ 7; 2145 benign lesions). XAI reliably detected clinically significant PCa in internal (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.89) and external test sets (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.87) with a sensitivity of 93% (95% CI: 87, 98) and an average of one false-positive finding per patient. Accuracy of the visual and textual explanations of XAI classifications was 80% (1080 of 1352), confirmed by experts. XAI-assisted readings improved the confidence (4.1 vs 3.4 on a five-point Likert scale; P = .007) of nonexperts in assessing PI-RADS 3 lesions, reducing reading time by 58 seconds (P = .009). Conclusion The explainable AI model reliably detected and classified clinically significant prostate cancer and improved the confidence and reading time of nonexperts while providing visual and textual explanations using well-established imaging features. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Chapiro in this issue.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1148/radiol.222276

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Armato SG 3rd, Huisman H, Drukker K, et al. PROSTATEx Challenges for computerized classification of prostate lesions from multiparametric magnetic resonance images. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 2018;5(4):044501.
  2. Kim B, Wattenberg M, Gilmer J, et al. Interpretability Beyond Feature Attri- bution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV). Pro- ceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR 2018; 2668-2677.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hamm, C. A., Baumgärtner, G. L., Biessmann, F., Beetz, N. L., Hartenstein, A., Savic, L. J., Froböse, K., Dräger, F., Schallenberg, S., Rudolph, M., Baur, A. D. J., Hamm, B., Haas, M., Hofbauer, S., Cash, H., & Penzkofer, T.
Affiliations
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
Venue
Radiology
Published
2023-05-01
Volume
307
Issue
4
Pages
e222276-e222276
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W4364352662
Cited by
133
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 8
FWCI
21.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Einstein Stiftung Berlin
  • Berlin Institute of Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
Keywords
clinically significant prostate cancer, explainable AI, biparametric MRI, PI-RADS, Gleason score, computer-aided diagnosis, deep learning, radiologist confidence, reading time, prostatitis, prostate cancer detection, external validation
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Aged, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Prostate, Prostatic Neoplasms, Retrospective Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review