search

menu

  • Research Research
    • Where science meets inspired minds

    • Back
    • Research
    • Our Science
    • Research Groups
    • Facilities & Platforms
    • Clinical research
    • Find a researcher
    • Publications
    • Knowledge Transfer
  • Careers & study Careers & study
    • Become a leader in cancer research

    • Back
    • Careers & study
    • Vacancies
    • Faculty
    • Scientific staff
    • Scientific support staff
    • Postdoctoral fellows
    • PhD Students
    • Operational staff
    • Clinical fellows
    • Life in Amsterdam
    • Student internships
  • News & Events News & Events
    • Check out our stories and events

    • Back
    • News & Events
    • News
    • Media & Press
    • Calendar
  • About us About us
    • Maximum impact for cancer patients

    • Back
    • About us
    • Our vision
    • Organization
    • Collaborations
    • Responsible Research
    • Support us
    • Visit us
    • Contact us
  • Support us
Support us
  • Home
  • Publications
  • Research
  • Publications
  • Article

Semi-supervised learning in prostate MRI tumor detection approaches fully supervised performance on external validation.

Eduardo H P Pooch ,
Georgios Agrotis ,
Lishan Cai ,
Mark Emberton ,
Taimur T Shah ,
Hashim U Ahmed ,
Regina G H Beets-Tan ,
Sean Benson ,
Tomas Janssen ,
Ivo G Schoots

Abstract

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used 1500 MRI scans from the PI-CAI challenge training subset. Positive scans had 220 human and 205 AI-generated annotations. The mtU-Net (proposed teacher-student semi-supervised approach) was compared to supervised (trained using only 220 human annotations) and semi-supervised (trained on human and AI-generated annotations) nnU-Net. The 205 AI-annotated scans were manually annotated, and a fully supervised model was trained. External validation was performed on a newly annotated dataset from the PROMIS study (n = 574, 403 lesions) and the Prostate158 dataset (n = 158, 126 lesions). Patient-level performance was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC) and lesion-level detection (overlap > 0.10) using average precision (AP), along with 95% confidence Intervals (in brackets), and the DeLong test to compare AUCs against the supervised and fully supervised models.

CONCLUSION

In prostate MRI tumor detection, fully supervised learning performed best. However, in external validation, the semi-supervised methods demonstrated performance that approached that of the fully supervised model, proving a valuable approach when expert annotations are limited.

RESULTS

The fully supervised nnU-Net showed the highest performance on the internal PI-CAI test set (AUC = 0.89 [0.87-0.91], AP = 0.65 [0.60-0.70]) and external validation datasets PROMIS (AUC = 0.68 [0.64-0.72], AP = 0.24 [0.20-0.29]) and Prostate158 (AUC = 0.87 [0.82-0.92], AP = 0.64 [0.56-0.72]), significantly outperforming the supervised baseline (p < 0.0 5). The proposed semi-supervised mtU-Net demonstrated close external validation performance on PROMIS (AUC = 0.66 [0.62-0.71], AP = 0.20 [0.16-0.25]) and Prostate158 (AUC = 0.86 [0.81-0.92], AP = 0.58 [0.49-0.67]), significantly outperforming the supervised baseline on both datasets (p = 0.047 and p = 0.014, respectively), and showing no significant difference to the fully supervised model (p = 0.199 and p = 0.702, respectively).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of semi-supervised learning models for aggressive prostate cancer detection on MRI compared to fully supervised models trained with additional expert annotations.

KEY POINTS

Question The need for extensive expert voxel-level annotations delays the development of AI-based prostate cancer diagnostic tools and their implementation in clinical practice. Findings The combination of pseudo-labeling with consistency regularization achieved performance comparable to that of fully supervised methods, demonstrating that data diversity matches the impact of expert annotation volume. Clinical relevance Semi-supervised learning reduces dependence on expert annotations while maintaining detection accuracy, enabling the development of scalable, automated diagnostic tools for prostate cancer amid growing clinical workflow demands.

More about this publication

European radiology

Volume 36
Issue nr. 6
Pages 5011-5021
Publication date 01-06-2026

Full text links

Publisher website (DOI) 10.1007/s00330-026-12324-x
Europe PubMed Central 41606246
Pubmed 41606246

Where science meets inspired minds

Contact

Plesmanlaan 121
1066CX Amsterdam

020 512 9111 communicatie@nki.nl

Quick links

  • Vacancies
  • News
  • Contact us
  • Media & Press

Follow us on

Disclaimer
Privacy statement
Cookies
Change cookie settings

This site uses cookies

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.