Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36569152›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022

A comparative study of gastric histopathology sub-size image classification: From linear regression to visual transformer.

Weiming Hu, Haoyuan Chen, Wanli Liu, Xiaoyan Li, Hongzan Sun, Xinyu Huang, Marcin Grzegorzek, Chen Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

8 authors.

Weiming HuMicroscopic Image and Medical Image Analysis Group, College of Medicine and Biological Information Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang, China.
Haoyuan ChenMicroscopic Image and Medical Image Analysis Group, College of Medicine and Biological Information Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang, China.
Wanli LiuMicroscopic Image and Medical Image Analysis Group, College of Medicine and Biological Information Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang, China.
Xiaoyan LiDepartment of Pathology, Liaoning Cancer Hospital and Institute, Cancer Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Hongzan SunDepartment of Radiology, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Xinyu HuangInstitute of Medical Informatics, University of Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany.
Marcin GrzegorzekInstitute of Medical Informatics, University of Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany.
Chen LiMicroscopic Image and Medical Image Analysis Group, College of Medicine and Biological Information Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer in the world. At the same time, it is also the fourth most deadly cancer. Early detection of cancer exists as a guide for the treatment of gastric cancer. Nowadays, computer technology has advanced rapidly to assist physicians in the diagnosis of pathological pictures of gastric cancer. Ensemble learning is a way to improve the accuracy of algorithms, and finding multiple learning models with complementarity types is the basis of ensemble learning. Therefore, this paper compares the performance of multiple algorithms in anticipation of applying ensemble learning to a practical gastric cancer classification problem. Methods: The complementarity of sub-size pathology image classifiers when machine performance is insufficient is explored in this experimental platform. We choose seven classical machine learning classifiers and four deep learning classifiers for classification experiments on the GasHisSDB database. Among them, classical machine learning algorithms extract five different image virtual features to match multiple classifier algorithms. For deep learning, we choose three convolutional neural network classifiers. In addition, we also choose a novel Transformer-based classifier. Results: The experimental platform, in which a large number of classical machine learning and deep learning methods are performed, demonstrates that there are differences in the performance of different classifiers on GasHisSDB. Classical machine learning models exist for classifiers that classify Abnormal categories very well, while classifiers that excel in classifying Normal categories also exist. Deep learning models also exist with multiple models that can be complementarity. Discussion: Suitable classifiers are selected for ensemble learning, when machine performance is insufficient. This experimental platform demonstrates that multiple classifiers are indeed complementarity and can improve the efficiency of ensemble learning. This can better assist doctors in diagnosis, improve the detection of gastric cancer, and increase the cure rate.

Indexed as

algorithmic complementaritygastric histopathologyimage classificationrobustness comparisonsub-size image

Identifiers

PMID36569152
PMCPMC9767945

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.