ArticleCancers2022
Evaluation of a Deep Learning Approach to Differentiate Bowen's Disease and Seborrheic Keratosis.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- SAVE: Spectrum-Aided Visual Enhancement for AI-Based Skin Cancer Detection.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Dermatologic Screening: Epidemiology and Clinical Features of Basal Cell Carcinoma, Squamous Cell Carcinoma, Seborrheic Keratosis and Actinic Keratosis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- An artificial intelligence model of whole-slide pathology specimens differentiating cutaneous high-grade squamous proliferations.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2025Article
- Clinical and histopathological characteristics, diagnosis and treatment, and comorbidities of Bowen's disease: a retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Some of the most common cutaneous neoplasms are Bowen’s disease and seborrheic keratosis, a malignant and a benign proliferation, respectively. These entities represent a significant fraction of a dermatopathologists’ workload, and in some cases, histological differentiation may be challenging. The potential of deep learning networks to distinguish these diseases is assessed. Methods: In total, 1935 whole-slide images from three institutions were scanned on two different slide scanners. A U-Net-based segmentation deep learning algorithm was trained on data from one of the centers to differentiate Bowen’s disease, seborrheic keratosis, and normal tissue, learning from annotations performed by dermatopathologists. Optimal thresholds for the class distinction of diagnoses were extracted and assessed on a test set with data from all three institutions. Results: We aimed to diagnose Bowen’s diseases with the highest sensitivity. A good performance was observed across all three centers, underlining the model’s robustness. In one of the centers, the distinction between Bowen’s disease and all other diagnoses was achieved with an AUC of 0.9858 and a sensitivity of 0.9511. Seborrheic keratosis was detected with an AUC of 0.9764 and a sensitivity of 0.9394. Nevertheless, distinguishing irritated seborrheic keratosis from Bowen’s disease remained challenging. Conclusions: Bowen’s disease and seborrheic keratosis could be correctly identified by the evaluated deep learning model on test sets from three different centers, two of which were not involved in training, and AUC scores > 0.97 were obtained. The method proved robust to changes in the staining solution and scanner model. We believe this demonstrates that deep learning algorithms can aid in clinical routine; however, the results should be confirmed by qualified histopathologists.
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.