Fully Automatic Deep Learning Framework for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Detection on Computed Tomography
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Early detection improves prognosis in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), but is challenging as lesions are often small and poorly defined on contrast-enhanced computed tomography scans (CE-CT). Deep learning can facilitate PDAC diagnosis; however, current models still fail to identify small (<2 cm) lesions. In this study, state-of-the-art deep learning models were used to develop an automatic framework for PDAC detection, focusing on small lesions. Additionally, the impact of integrating the surrounding anatomy was investigated. CE-CT scans from a cohort of 119 pathology-proven PDAC patients and a cohort of 123 patients without PDAC were used to train a nnUnet for automatic lesion detection and segmentation (nnUnet_T). Two additional nnUnets were trained to investigate the impact of anatomy integration: (1) segmenting the pancreas and tumor (nnUnet_TP), and (2) segmenting the pancreas, tumor, and multiple surrounding anatomical structures (nnUnet_MS). An external, publicly available test set was used to compare the performance of the three networks. The nnUnet_MS achieved the best performance, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.91 for the whole test set and 0.88 for tumors <2 cm, showing that state-of-the-art deep learning can detect small PDAC and benefits from anatomy information.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Recent advances include the application of deep learning techniques like CNNs, transformer-based models, and new architectures that focus on handling various types of pancreatic lesions, segmenting multiple organs and tumors, and integrating auxiliary information.
“Recent advances include the application of deep learning techniques like convolutional neural networks (CNNs), transformer-based models, and new architectures that focus on handling various types of pancreatic lesions, segmenting multiple organs and tumors, and integrating auxiliary information [7,8,9,24,25,26].”
From Applicability of Radiomics for Differentiation of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma from Healthy Tissue of Pancreas by Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Machine Learning (2025) · cites this paper as [26]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFew reviews discuss the latest developments in AI for pancreatic cancer diagnosis using cross-sectional imaging techniques, with most focusing on CT.
“Few reviews discuss the latest developments in AI for pancreatic cancer diagnosis using cross-sectional imaging techniques, with most focusing on CT [7,8,9,25,26,27].”
From Applicability of Radiomics for Differentiation of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma from Healthy Tissue of Pancreas by Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Machine Learning (2025) · cites this paper as [26]
The Introduction discusses AI for PDAC diagnosis and identifies CT as the most-used modality for initial diagnosis; the Discussion describes prior CT-based detection studies. Neither section addresses how many reviews cover AI and cross-sectional imaging or whether most such reviews focus on CT (searched for reviews and comparisons of imaging modalities). (LLM, conf=0.73)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 31 · Cited by 92
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [25]Saha A. Bosma J. Linmans J. Hosseinzadeh M. Huisman H. Anatomical and Diagnostic Bayesian Segmentation in Prostate MRI -Should Different Clinical Objectives Mandate Different Loss Functions? arXiv 2021 2110.12889
- Authors
- Alves, N., Schuurmans, M., Litjens, G., Bosma, J. S., Hermans, J., & Huisman, H.
- Affiliations
- Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
- Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Alves, Natália
- Venue
- Cancers
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2022-01-13
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 376
- ISSN
- 2072-6694 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8774174
- OpenAlex
- W3217415712
- Cited by
- 92
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 8
- FWCI
- 6.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Cancers (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Preprints.org (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- European Union (101016851)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
- Keywords
- pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, tumor detection, small lesion detection, contrast-enhanced CT, nnU-Net, lesion segmentation, pancreas segmentation, automatic tumor detection
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