ArticleScientific reports2020
Comparison of manual and machine learning image processing approaches to determine fungiform papillae on the tongue.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determination of Fungiform Papilla Number Using Deep Learning Methods.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Automatic detection of fungiform papillae on the human tongue via Convolutional Neural Networks and identification of the best performing model.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Machine learning and topological data analysis identify unique features of human papillae in 3D scans.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Alteration of taste perception, food neophobia and oral microbiota composition in children with food allergy.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human taste perception is associated with the papillae on the tongue as they contain a large proportion of chemoreceptors for basic tastes and other chemosensation. Especially the density of fungiform papillae (FP) is considered as an index for responsiveness to oral chemosensory stimuli. The standard procedure for FP counting involves visual identification and manual counting of specific parts of the tongue by trained operators. This is a tedious task and automated image analysis methods are desirable. In this paper a machine learning image processing method based on a convolutional neural network is presented. This automated method was compared with three standard manual FP counting procedures using tongue pictures from 132 subjects. Automated FP counts, within the selected areas and the whole tongue, significantly correlated with the manual counting methods (all ρs ≥ 0.76). When comparing the images for gender and PROP status, the density of FP predicted from automated analysis was in good agreement with data from the manual counting methods, especially in the case of gender. Moreover, the present results reinforce the idea that caution should be applied in considering the relationship between FP density and PROP responsiveness since this relationship can be an oversimplification of the complexity of phenomena arising at the central and peripherical levels. Indeed, no significant correlations were found between FP and PROP bitterness ratings using the automated method for selected areas or the whole tongue. Besides providing estimates of the number of FP, the machine learning approach used a tongue coordinate system that normalizes the size and shape of an individual tongue and generated a heat map of the FP position and normalized area they cover. The present study demonstrated that the machine learning approach could provide similar estimates of FP on the tongue as compared to manual counting methods and provide estimates of more difficult-to-measure parameters, such as the papillae's areas and shape.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.