Paige Prostate

Evaluation of the Paige Prostate commercial AI system in Memorial’s workflow.

Purpose

A vendor-model evaluation rather than a model-development project. The specific question, endpoint, and comparator are not documented in the chapter. [unverified]

Data used

Not documented. [unverified]

Methods

Not documented. [unverified] The group’s stated convention for evaluating an AI model against pathologists is to use meddecide — diagnostic accuracy plus decision-curve framing — rather than raw accuracy.

Current state / open questions

Active. Chapter is a stub: repo plus site links only. Site: paigeprostate.patoloji.dev, with a revision1 page under WIP suggesting a manuscript revision is in progress. [unverified]

Open questions for the next refresh: reference standard used, how many pathologists, whether the evaluation is standalone or assisted-read, and whether the cohort is consecutive or enriched. Enrichment is the usual quiet problem in vendor evaluations because it inflates apparent PPV relative to routine prevalence.

Derived from: patoloji-ai/paigeprostate.qmd, projects/projects.yml.