Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jul 7;15(7):e097591.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-097591.

Development and retrospective validation of an artificial intelligence system for diagnostic assessment of prostate biopsies: study protocol

Affiliations

Development and retrospective validation of an artificial intelligence system for diagnostic assessment of prostate biopsies: study protocol

Nita Mulliqi et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Introduction: Histopathological evaluation of prostate biopsies using the Gleason scoring system is critical for prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment selection. However, grading variability among pathologists can lead to inconsistent assessments, risking inappropriate treatment. Similar challenges complicate the assessment of other prognostic features like cribriform cancer morphology and perineural invasion. Many pathology departments are also facing an increasingly unsustainable workload due to rising prostate cancer incidence and a decreasing pathologist workforce coinciding with increasing requirements for more complex assessments and reporting. Digital pathology and artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms for analysing whole slide images show promise in improving the accuracy and efficiency of histopathological assessments. Studies have demonstrated AI's capability to diagnose and grade prostate cancer comparably to expert pathologists. However, external validations on diverse data sets have been limited and often show reduced performance. Historically, there have been no well-established guidelines for AI study designs and validation methods. Diagnostic assessments of AI systems often lack preregistered protocols and rigorous external cohort sampling, essential for reliable evidence of their safety and accuracy.

Methods and analysis: This study protocol covers the retrospective validation of an AI system for prostate biopsy assessment. The primary objective of the study is to develop a high-performing and robust AI model for diagnosis and Gleason scoring of prostate cancer in core needle biopsies, and at scale evaluate whether it can generalise to fully external data from independent patients, pathology laboratories and digitalisation platforms. The secondary objectives cover AI performance in estimating cancer extent and detecting cribriform prostate cancer and perineural invasion. This protocol outlines the steps for data collection, predefined partitioning of data cohorts for AI model training and validation, model development and predetermined statistical analyses, ensuring systematic development and comprehensive validation of the system. The protocol adheres to Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model of Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis+AI (TRIPOD+AI), Protocol Items for External Cohort Evaluation of a Deep Learning System in Cancer Diagnostics (PIECES), Checklist for AI in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) and other relevant best practices.

Ethics and dissemination: Data collection and usage were approved by the respective ethical review boards of each participating clinical laboratory, and centralised anonymised data handling was approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority. The study will be conducted in agreement with the Helsinki Declaration. The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications (open access).

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence; HISTOPATHOLOGY; Prostate; Retrospective Studies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: NM, LE, KK and ME are co-founders and shareholders of Clinsight AB, and MR is a co-founder and shareholder of Stratipath AB. All other authors have no competing interests to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the study design. The study design has two main steps: (top) The development phase involves model design optimisation through an iterative process of experiments. In each experiment, the model is trained and its performance is evaluated on the development set using cross-validation and on a separate tuning set. (bottom) The validation phase is initiated with a design freeze, after which no further changes to the model take place. Validation comprises the assessment on the internal data (ie, collected from the same laboratory and/or using the same scanner as development data) and the external data (ie, collected from other laboratories using other scanners than any of the development data). The colour-coding of the cohort icons represents the shared origin of data used for development and internal validation, and the fully independent nature of the external validation and tuning cohorts. Created in BioRender. Mulliqi, N. (2025) https://BioRender.com/evzu6sn. WSIs, whole slide images.

Similar articles

References

    1. Filho AM, Laversanne M, Ferlay J, et al. The GLOBOCAN 2022 cancer estimates: Data sources, methods, and a snapshot of the cancer burden worldwide. Int J Cancer. 2025;156:1336–46. doi: 10.1002/ijc.35278. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64:876–92. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.049. - DOI - PubMed
    1. James ND, Tannock I, N’Dow J, et al. The Lancet Commission on prostate cancer: planning for the surge in cases. Lancet. 2024;403:1683–722. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00651-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gleason DF. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol. 1992;23:273–9. doi: 10.1016/0046-8177(92)90108-f. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Jr, Amin MB, et al. ISUP grading committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol; 2005. pp. 1228–42. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources