Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33514930›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cancer2021

Designing deep learning studies in cancer diagnostics.

Andreas Kleppe, Ole-Johan Skrede, Sepp De Raedt, Knut Liestøl, David J Kerr, Håvard E Danielsen

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 165 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
165citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

165 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. A highly interpretable machine learning model for predicting lung cancer bone metastasis: uncovering the synergistic effect of routine biochemical markers.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Deep learning prediction model based on multi-modal transvaginal ultrasound scan images for endometrial cancer.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

105 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Andreas KleppeInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8370-5289
Ole-Johan SkredeInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4783-717X
Sepp De RaedtInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9291-1730
Knut LiestølInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7929-582X
David J KerrNuffield Division of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7811-6722
Håvard E DanielsenInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. hdaniels@ifi.uio.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6798-4724

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The number of publications on deep learning for cancer diagnostics is rapidly increasing, and systems are frequently claimed to perform comparable with or better than clinicians. However, few systems have yet demonstrated real-world medical utility. In this Perspective, we discuss reasons for the moderate progress and describe remedies designed to facilitate transition to the clinic. Recent, presumably influential, deep learning studies in cancer diagnostics, of which the vast majority used images as input to the system, are evaluated to reveal the status of the field. By manipulating real data, we then exemplify that much and varied training data facilitate the generalizability of neural networks and thus the ability to use them clinically. To reduce the risk of biased performance estimation of deep learning systems, we advocate evaluation in external cohorts and strongly advise that the planned analyses, including a predefined primary analysis, are described in a protocol preferentially stored in an online repository. Recommended protocol items should be established for the field, and we present our suggestions.

Indexed as

Deep LearningHumansNeoplasms

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.