Semi-Supervised Learning in Prostate MRI Tumor Segmentation Approaches Fully-Supervised Performance on External Validation

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic performance of semi-supervised learning models for aggressive prostate cancer segmentation on MRI compared to fully-supervised models trained with additional expert annotations. 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) and the Prostate158 dataset (n=158). Patient-level performance was evaluated using Area Under the Curve (AUC), Average Precision (AP) for lesion-level detection, and the DeLong test to compare performance. 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=0.70[0.66-0.74]/AP=0.24[0.19-0.29]) and Prostate158 (AUC=0.87[0.82-0.92]/AP=0.64[0.56-0.72]), significantly outperforming the supervised baseline (p≤0.002). 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=0.024 and p=0.007, respectively). Semi-supervised nnU-Net showed intermediate results on PROMIS (AUC=0.65[0.60-0.69]/AP=0.20[0.16-0.24]) and Prostate158 (AUC=0.81[0.74-0.88]/AP=0.53[0.44-0.62]), significantly outperforming the supervised baseline only on PROMIS (p=0.042). Conclusion In prostate MRI tumor segmentation, nnU-Net fully-supervised learning performed best. However, in external validation, mtU-Net’s semi-supervised learning performance approached the fully-supervised model, demonstrating a valuable approach when expert annotations are limited. Summary Semi-supervised learning achieves close performance to fully-supervised methods on external validation in prostate cancer segmentation, reducing dependence on expert annotations in increasing demands. Key points The inclusion of AI-annotated data during training showed close performance to annotating additional samples with expert delineations, suggesting data diversity may be as impactful as increased expert annotation volume. The combination of pseudo-labeling with consistency regularization within the semi-supervised mtU-Net framework mitigated the impact of potential inaccuracies in AI-generated annotations, resulting in performance approaching that of fully-supervised models.
Full text 4,613 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 4 sections · click to expand

Abstract

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

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) and the Prostate158 dataset (n=158). Patient-level performance was evaluated using Area Under the Curve (AUC), Average Precision (AP) for lesion-level detection, and the DeLong test to compare performance.

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=0.70[0.66-0.74]/AP=0.24[0.19-0.29]) and Prostate158 (AUC=0.87[0.82-0.92]/AP=0.64[0.56-0.72]), significantly outperforming the supervised baseline (p≤0.002). 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=0.024 and p=0.007, respectively). Semi-supervised nnU-Net showed intermediate results on PROMIS (AUC=0.65[0.60-0.69]/AP=0.20[0.16-0.24]) and Prostate158 (AUC=0.81[0.74-0.88]/AP=0.53[0.44-0.62]), significantly outperforming the supervised baseline only on PROMIS (p=0.042).

Conclusion

In prostate MRI tumor segmentation, nnU-Net fully-supervised learning performed best. However, in external validation, mtU-Net’s semi-supervised learning performance approached the fully-supervised model, demonstrating a valuable approach when expert annotations are limited. Summary Semi-supervised learning achieves close performance to fully-supervised methods on external validation in prostate cancer segmentation, reducing dependence on expert annotations in increasing demands. Key points The inclusion of AI-annotated data during training showed close performance to annotating additional samples with expert delineations, suggesting data diversity may be as impactful as increased expert annotation volume. The combination of pseudo-labeling with consistency regularization within the semi-supervised mtU-Net framework mitigated the impact of potential inaccuracies in AI-generated annotations, resulting in performance approaching that of fully-supervised models. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Funding Statement This study did not receive any funding Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: The study used ONLY openly available human data that were originally located at: PI-CAI: https://pi-cai.grand-challenge.org/ PROMIS: https://ncita.org.uk/promis-data-set-open-access-request/ Prostate158: https://github.com/kbressem/prostate158 I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes Data Availability All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-28T02:00:01.590549+00:00
License: CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0