Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35194184›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2022

Prediction of lymph node metastasis in early colorectal cancer based on histologic images by artificial intelligence.

Manabu Takamatsu, Noriko Yamamoto, Hiroshi Kawachi, Kaoru Nakano, Shoichi Saito, Yosuke Fukunaga, Kengo Takeuchi

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. CRCFound: A Colorectal Cancer CT Image Foundation Model Based on Self-Supervised Learning.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Manabu TakamatsuDivision of Pathology, Cancer Institute, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, 3-8-31, Ariake, Ko-to-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan. manabu.takamatsu@jfcr.or.jp.
Noriko YamamotoDivision of Pathology, Cancer Institute, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, 3-8-31, Ariake, Ko-to-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan.
Hiroshi KawachiDivision of Pathology, Cancer Institute, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, 3-8-31, Ariake, Ko-to-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan.
Kaoru NakanoDivision of Pathology, Cancer Institute, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, 3-8-31, Ariake, Ko-to-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan.
Shoichi SaitoDepartment of Endoscopy, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan.
Yosuke FukunagaDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan.
Kengo TakeuchiDivision of Pathology, Cancer Institute, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, 3-8-31, Ariake, Ko-to-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan.
Japanese Foundation For Cancer Research · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Risk evaluation of lymph node metastasis (LNM) for endoscopically resected submucosal invasive (T1) colorectal cancers (CRC) is critical for determining therapeutic strategies, but interobserver variability for histologic evaluation remains a major problem. To address this issue, we developed a machine-learning model for predicting LNM of T1 CRC without histologic assessment. A total of 783 consecutive T1 CRC cases were randomly split into 548 training and 235 validation cases. First, we trained convolutional neural networks (CNN) to extract cancer tile images from whole-slide images, then re-labeled these cancer tiles with LNM status for re-training. Statistical parameters of the tile images based on the probability of primary endpoints were assembled to predict LNM in cases with a random forest algorithm, and defined its predictive value as random forest score. We evaluated the performance of case-based prediction models for both training and validation datasets with area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC). The accuracy for classifying cancer tiles was 0.980. Among cancer tiles, the accuracy for classifying tiles that were LNM-positive or LNM-negative was 0.740. The AUCs of the prediction models in the training and validation sets were 0.971 and 0.760, respectively. CNN judged the LNM probability by considering histologic tumor grade.

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedMachine LearningColorectal NeoplasmsEndoscopyFemaleHistocytological Preparation TechniquesHumansLymphatic MetastasisMaleNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm Staging

Identifiers

PMID35194184
PMCPMC8863850
OpenAlexW4213163966

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.