Training With Local Data Remains Important for Deep Learning MRI Prostate Cancer Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Domain shift has been shown to have a major detrimental effect on AI model performance however prior studies on domain shift for MRI prostate cancer segmentation have been limited to small, or heterogenous cohorts. Our objective was to assess whether prostate cancer segmentation models trained on local MRI data continue to outperform those trained on external data with cohorts exceeding 1000. Methods: We simulated a multi-institutional consortium using the public PICAI dataset (PICAI-TRAIN: 1241 exams , PICAI-TEST: 259 ) and a local dataset (LOCAL-TRAIN: 1400 exams , LOCAL-TEST: 308 ). IRB approval was obtained and consent waived. We compared nnUNet-v2 models trained on the combined data (CENTRAL-TRAIN) and separately on PICAI-TRAIN and LOCAL-TRAIN. Accuracy was evaluated using the open source PICAI Score on LOCAL-TEST. Significance was tested using bootstrapping. Results: Just 22% (309/1400) of LOCAL-TRAIN exams would be sufficient to match the performance of a model trained on PICAI-TRAIN. The CENTRAL-TRAIN performance was similar to LOCAL-TRAIN performance, with PICAI Scores [95% CI] of 65 [58-71] and 66 [60-72], respectively. Both of these models exceeded the model trained on PICAI-TRAIN alone which had a score of 58 [51-64] ( P < .002). Reducing training set size did not alter these relative trends. Conclusion: Domain shift limits MRI prostate cancer segmentation performance even when training with over 1000 exams from 3 external institutions. Use of local data is paramount at these scales.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".