TRV-2026-1720Version 1 · Certified

Written 2026-10-17 18:13:11 UTC · current record

Reason for this version

Certified into the record

Canonical text (the exact bytes fingerprinted)

TRUVACE RECORD VERSION
record: TRV-2026-1720
version: 1
kind: certified
reason: Certified into the record
timestamp: 2026-10-17T18:13:11.478949Z
status: published
lens: g_space
sector: health
headline: Multi-institutional Patient-level Comparison of Decipher Genomic Classifier and Artera Multimodal Artificial Intelligence (MMAI) in Prostate Cancer
dek: Importance The Decipher Prostate Genomic Classifier (GC) and ArteraAI Multimodal Artificial Intelligence (MMAI) platform are widely used prognostic tools for localized prostate cancer (PCa), yet no direct comparison has been performed within the same patient cohort. Methods We sought to evaluate the concordance and prognostic value of GC and MMAI across multi-institutional cohorts totaling 688 patients with localized and oligometastatic PCa. These included populations enriched for African American and East Asian…
gain_title: In a direct same-cohort comparison, the Artera multimodal AI score predicted distant metastasis-free survival and in some cohorts added prognostic information beyond the Decipher genomic classifier.
problem_title: (none)
trace_subject: (none)
gain_reading: In a direct same-cohort comparison, the Artera multimodal AI score predicted distant metastasis-free survival and in some cohorts added prognostic information beyond the Decipher genomic classifier.
gain_evidence: both MMAI and GC were prognostic alone and after adjusting for clinical variables
problem_reading: (none)
problem_evidence: (none)
quick_read: Researchers compared two widely used prognostic tools for localized prostate cancer, the Decipher genomic classifier and the Artera multimodal AI platform, within the same patients for the first time. The analysis covered 688 patients across several institutions, including groups enriched for African American and East Asian patients, with distant metastasis-free survival as the main endpoint.

The comparison matters because clinicians rely on such tools to judge risk, and until now there was no direct patient-level evidence on how they relate. The two scores were moderately correlated and both carried prognostic value, but results varied by cohort and specimen type, so the findings do not settle which tool is preferable.
limitation: The added value of MMAI over GC was not uniform: it was significant in Moffitt RP but only borderline in Moffitt biopsy, and concordant-case outcomes were described only qualitatively.
tag: Evidence-backed gain
key_points: The study included 688 patients with localized and oligometastatic prostate cancer from multiple institutions. | Cohorts were enriched for African American and East Asian patients. | GC and MMAI scores were significantly correlated across multiple cohorts, though the correlation was described as moderate. | Patients rated high-risk by both tools did qualitatively worse than others. | Biopsy cohorts showed consistent discordance in signaling, metabolic, and DNA repair pathways.
rundown: Both tools were stratified into risk groups according to whether the sample came from a biopsy or a radical prostatectomy. The primary outcome was distant metastasis-free survival, measured from diagnosis to last follow-up or event.

In the Moffitt radical prostatectomy, Moffitt biopsy, and NCCS cohorts, each score was prognostic on its own and after adjustment for clinical variables. In a model including both biomarkers and clinical variables, MMAI remained significant in Moffitt radical prostatectomy and was borderline in Moffitt biopsy.

A pathway analysis showed high concordance between the two tools for Moffitt radical prostatectomy and oligometastatic patients. Across both biopsy cohorts most biological pathways agreed, but signaling, metabolic, and DNA repair pathways were consistently discordant.
sources:
- peer_reviewed | Clinical Cancer Research | https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-26-2269 | 2026-10-08
prev: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
sha256
a6570225132b55ff5f3d67ae56e4e0e43dfd166c4504ab595808fe48bdfbdb1b
previous
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Verify this record
How to verify without trusting this page

Fetch the canonical text of any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-1720 and hash it yourself — for example shasum -a 256 on the saved canonical field. The result must equal content_hash, and each version’s text ends with prev:followed by the prior version’s hash (version 1 chains to 64 zeros). If a single character of any version had been altered since certification, the chain would not reproduce.