Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34286371›Full record

ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2021

Performance of automatic machine learning versus radiologists in the evaluation of endometrium on computed tomography.

Dan Li, Rong Hu, Huizhou Li, Yeyu Cai, Paul J Zhang, Jing Wu, Chengzhang Zhu, Harrison X Bai

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. [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 · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Dan Li *Department of Interventional Medicine, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangdong, China.
Rong Hu *School of Computer Science and Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Huizhou LiDepartment of Radiology, Second Xiangya Hospital, Changsha, China.
Yeyu CaiDepartment of Radiology, Second Xiangya Hospital, Changsha, China.
Paul J ZhangDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Jing WuDepartment of Radiology, Second Xiangya Hospital, Changsha, China.
Chengzhang ZhuCollege of Literature and Journalism, Central South University, Changsha, China. anandawork@126.com.
Harrison X BaiDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Rhode Island Hospital and Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Central South University · CNHospital of the University of Pennsylvania · USRhode Island Hospital · USSecond Xiangya Hospital of Central South University · CNSixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

Foundation for the National Institutes of Health R03CA249554
6 · The paper itself

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

Machine LearningTomography, X-Ray ComputedEndometriumFemaleHumansRadiologistsRetrospective StudiesAutomatic machine learningComputed tomographyEndometrial cancerRadiomics

Identifiers

PMID34286371
OpenAlexW3183975690

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.