ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Computer-aided diagnosis of cervical dysplasia using colposcopic images.
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.
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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- AI-assisted diagnosis of cervical dysplasia from cervicography images.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Influence of cervical treatment methods on subsequent vaginal lesions: A study of HPV-related neoplasia.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2024Article
- Diagnosis Assistance in Colposcopy by Segmenting Acetowhite Epithelium Using U-Net with Images before and after Acetic Acid Solution Application.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: computer-aided diagnosis of medical images is becoming more significant in intelligent medicine. Colposcopy-guided biopsy with pathological diagnosis is the gold standard in diagnosing CIN and invasive cervical cancer. However, it struggles with its low sensitivity in differentiating cancer/HSIL from LSIL/normal, particularly in areas with a lack of skilled colposcopists and access to adequate medical resources. Methods: the model used the auto-segmented colposcopic images to extract color and texture features using the T-test method. It then augmented minority data using the SMOTE method to balance the skewed class distribution. Finally, it used an RBF-SVM to generate a preliminary output. The results, integrating the TCT, HPV tests, and age, were combined into a naïve Bayes classifier for cervical lesion diagnosis. Results: the multimodal machine learning model achieved physician-level performance (sensitivity: 51.2%, specificity: 86.9%, accuracy: 81.8%), and it could be interpreted by feature extraction and visualization. With the aid of the model, colposcopists improved the sensitivity from 53.7% to 70.7% with an acceptable specificity of 81.1% and accuracy of 79.6%. Conclusion: using a computer-aided diagnosis system, physicians could identify cancer/HSIL with greater sensitivity, which guided biopsy to take timely treatment.
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.