ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
High-Accuracy Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma Auxiliary Diagnosis System Based on EfficientNet.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep learning in oral cancer- a systematic review.BMC oral health · 2024Pooled it
- Generalizability of Deep Learning Architectures for Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma Classification in Histopathology: A Comparative CNN-Vision Transformer Study with External Validation and Label-Quality Analysis.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Transcriptome analysis of key genes and pathways associated with cisplatin resistance in oral squamous cell carcinoma Cal27 cells.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is important to diagnose the grade of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), but the current evaluation of the biopsy slide still mainly depends on the manual operation of pathologists. The workload of manual evaluation is large, and the results are greatly affected by the subjectivity of the pathologists. In recent years, with the development and application of deep learning, automatic evaluation of biopsy slides is gradually being applied to medical diagnoses, and it has shown good results. Therefore, a new OSCC auxiliary diagnostic system was proposed to automatically and accurately evaluate the patients' tissue slides. This is the first study that compared the effects of different resolutions on the results. The OSCC tissue slides from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA, n=697) and our independent datasets (n=337) were used for model training and verification. In the test dataset of tiles, the accuracy was 93.1% at 20x resolution (n=306,134), which was higher than that at 10x (n=154,148, accuracy=90.9%) and at 40x (n=890,681, accuracy=89.3%). The accuracy of the new system based on EfficientNet, which was used to evaluate the tumor grade of the biopsy slide, reached 98.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 97.1% to 99.1%], and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) reached 0.998 (95%CI: 0.995 to 1.000) in the TCGA dataset. When verifying the model on the independent image dataset, the accuracy still reached 91.4% (95% CI: 88.4% to 94.4%, at 20x) and the AUROC reached 0.992 (95%CI: 0.982 to 1.000). It may benefit oral pathologists by reducing certain repetitive and time-consuming tasks, improving the efficiency of diagnosis, and facilitating the further development of computational histopathology.
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.