Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34473310›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2022

An Artificial Intelligence System for the Detection of Bladder Cancer via Cystoscopy: A Multicenter Diagnostic Study.

Shaoxu Wu, Xiong Chen, Jiexin Pan, Wen Dong, Xiayao Diao, Ruiyun Zhang, Yonghai Zhang, Yuanfeng Zhang, Guang Qian, Hao Chen and 14 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Advances in the management of localized bladder cancers.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Shaoxu WuDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Xiong ChenDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Jiexin PanDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Wen DongDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Xiayao DiaoDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7663-4304
Ruiyun ZhangDepartment of Urology, Renji Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yonghai ZhangDepartment of Urology, Shantou Central Hospital, Shantou, China.
Yuanfeng ZhangDepartment of Urology, Shantou Central Hospital, Shantou, China.
Guang QianPeng Cheng Laboratory, Shenzhen, China.
Hao ChenDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China.ORCID 0000-0002-8400-3780
Haotian LinState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Centre, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Shizhong XuDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Zhiwen ChenDepartmemt of Urology, The First Hospital Affiliated to Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Xiaozhou ZhouDepartmemt of Urology, The First Hospital Affiliated to Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Hongbing MeiDepartment of Urology, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Chenglong WuDepartment of Urology, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Qiang LvDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Baorui YuanDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Zeshi ChenDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Wenjian LiaoDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9823-9949
Xuefan YangDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Haige ChenDepartment of Urology, Renji Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Jian HuangDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Tianxin LinDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0003-3180-8697
Sun Yat-sen University · CNArmy Medical University · CNShanghai Jiao Tong University · CNJiangsu Province Hospital · CNShantou Central Hospital · CNShenzhen Second People's Hospital · CNPeng Cheng Laboratory · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCystoscopy plays an important role in bladder cancer (BCa) diagnosis and treatment, but its sensitivity needs improvement. Artificial intelligence has shown promise in endoscopy, but few cystoscopic applications have been reported. We report a Cystoscopy Artificial Intelligence Diagnostic System (CAIDS) for BCa diagnosis.

methodsIn total, 69 204 images from 10 729 consecutive patients from 6 hospitals were collected and divided into training, internal validation, and external validation sets. The CAIDS was built using a pyramid scene parsing network and transfer learning. A subset (n = 260) of the validation sets was used for a performance comparison between the CAIDS and urologists for complex lesion detection. The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.

resultsThe diagnostic accuracies of the CAIDS were 0.977 (95% CI = 0.974 to 0.979) in the internal validation set and 0.990 (95% CI = 0.979 to 0.996), 0.982 (95% CI = 0.974 to 0.988), 0.978 (95% CI = 0.959 to 0.989), and 0.991 (95% CI = 0.987 to 0.994) in different external validation sets. In the CAIDS vs urologists' comparisons, the CAIDS showed high accuracy and sensitivity (accuracy = 0.939, 95% CI = 0.902 to 0.964; sensitivity = 0.954, 95% CI = 0.902 to 0.983) with a short latency of 12 seconds, much more accurate and quicker than the expert urologists.

conclusionsThe CAIDS achieved accurate BCa detection with a short latency. The CAIDS may provide many clinical benefits, from increasing the diagnostic accuracy for BCa, even for commonly misdiagnosed cases such as flat cancerous tissue (carcinoma in situ), to reducing the operation time for cystoscopy.

Indexed as

CystoscopyUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsArtificial IntelligenceHumansPredictive Value of Tests

Identifiers

PMID34473310
PMCPMC8826636
OpenAlexW3197514134

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.