Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36408137›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022

Clinical-grade endometrial cancer detection system

Xiaobo Zhang, Wei Ba, Xiaoya Zhao, Chen Wang, Qiting Li, Yinli Zhang, Shanshan Lu, Lang Wang, Shuhao Wang, Zhigang Song and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Role of artificial intelligence in digital pathology for gynecological cancers.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. A self-supervised classification model for endometrial diseases.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

11 authors.

Xiaobo ZhangDepartment of Pathology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China.
Wei BaDepartment of Pathology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xiaoya ZhaoDepartment of Pathology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China.
Chen WangDepartment of Pathology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China.
Qiting LiR&D Department, China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology, Beijing, China.
Yinli ZhangDepartment of Pathology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China.
Shanshan LuDepartment of Pathology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China.
Lang WangThorough Lab, Thorough Future, Beijing, China.
Shuhao WangThorough Lab, Thorough Future, Beijing, China.
Zhigang SongDepartment of Pathology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Danhua ShenDepartment of Pathology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The accurate pathological diagnosis of endometrial cancer (EC) improves the curative effect and reduces the mortality rate. Deep learning has demonstrated expert-level performance in pathological diagnosis of a variety of organ systems using whole-slide images (WSIs). It is urgent to build the deep learning system for endometrial cancer detection using WSIs. The deep learning model was trained and validated using a dataset of 601 WSIs from PUPH. The model performance was tested on three independent datasets containing a total of 1,190 WSIs. For the retrospective test, we evaluated the model performance on 581 WSIs from PUPH. In the prospective study, 317 consecutive WSIs from PUPH were collected from April 2022 to May 2022. To further evaluate the generalizability of the model, 292 WSIs were gathered from PLAHG as part of the external test set. The predictions were thoroughly analyzed by expert pathologists. The model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of 0.928, 0.924, and 0.801, respectively, on 1,190 WSIs in classifying EC and non-EC. On the retrospective dataset from PUPH/PLAGH, the model achieved an AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.948/0.971, 0.928/0.947, and 0.80/0.938, respectively. On the prospective dataset, the AUC, sensitivity, and specificity were, in order, 0.933, 0.934, and 0.837. Falsely predicted results were analyzed to further improve the pathologists' confidence in the model. The deep learning model achieved a high degree of accuracy in identifying EC using WSIs. By pre-screening the suspicious EC regions, it would serve as an assisted diagnostic tool to improve working efficiency for pathologists.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceconvolutional neural networkdata analysisdeep learningendometrial cancer

Identifiers

PMID36408137
PMCPMC9668742

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.