ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2021
Performance of automatic machine learning versus radiologists in the evaluation of endometrium on computed tomography.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnosis Test Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence for Endometrial Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating the quality of radiomics-based studies for endometrial cancer using RQS and METRICS tools.European radiology · 2025Pooled it
- [Endometrial cancer lesion region segmentation based on large kernel convolution and combined attention].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2025Article
- The tree-based pipeline optimization tool: Tackling biomedical research problems with genetic programming and automated machine learning.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence radiomics in the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of gynecological cancer: a literature review.Translational cancer research · 2025Review
- A comprehensive review of machine learning algorithms and their application in geriatric medicine: present and future.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2023Review
- A model for predicting fall risks of hospitalized elderly in Taiwan-A machine learning approach based on both electronic health records and comprehensive geriatric assessment.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIn this study, we developed radiomic models that utilize a combination of imaging features and clinical variables to distinguish endometrial cancer (EC) from normal endometrium on routine computed tomography (CT).
methodsA total of 926 patients consisting of 416 endometrial cancer (EC) and 510 normal endometrium were included. The CT images of these patients were segmented manually, and divided into training, validation, testing and external testing sets. Non-texture and texture features of these images with endometrium or uterus as region of interest were extracted. The clinical feature "age" was also included in the feature set. Feature selection and machine learning classifier were applied to normalized feature set. This manual optimized combination was then compared with the best pipeline exported by Tree-Based Pipeline Optimization Tool (TPOT) on testing and external testing set. The performances of these machine learning pipelines were compared to that of radiologists.
resultsThe manual expert optimized pipeline using the "reliefF" feature selection method and "Bagging" classifier on the external testing set achieved a test ROC AUC of 0.73, accuracy of 0.73 (95% CI 0.62-0.82), sensitivity of 0.64 (95% CI 0.45-0.79), and specificity of 0.78 (95% CI 0.65-0.87), while TPOT achieved a test ROC AUC of 0.79, accuracy of 0.80 (95% CI 0.70-0.87), sensitivity of 0.61 (95% CI 0.43-0.77), and specificity of 0.90 (95% CI 0.78-0.96). When compared to average radiologist performance, the TPOT achieved higher test accuracy (0.80 vs. 0.49, p < 0.001) and specificity (0.90 vs. 0.51, p < 0.001), with comparable sensitivity (0.61 vs. 0.46, p = 0.130).
conclusionOur results demonstrate that automatic machine learning can distinguish EC from normal endometrium on routine CT imaging with higher accuracy and specificity than radiologists.
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.