ArticleScientific reports2023
Preliminary evaluation of deep learning for first-line diagnostic prediction of tumor mutational status.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- AI-based detection of neutrophil dysplasia: an accessible and sensitive model for MDS diagnosis from peripheral blood.Annals of hematology · 2025Article
- Computational pathology for breast cancer: Where do we stand for prognostic applications?Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2025Review
- Deep learning in histopathology images for prediction of oncogenic driver molecular alterations in lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational lung cancer research · 2025Article
- Enhancing the prediction ofTranslational lung cancer research · 2024Article
- Current status and prospects of artificial intelligence in breast cancer pathology: convolutional neural networks to prospective Vision Transformers.International journal of clinical oncology · 2024Review
- Deep learning application in prediction of cancer molecular alterations based on pathological images: a bibliographic analysis via CiteSpace.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The detection of tumour gene mutations by DNA or RNA sequencing is crucial for the prescription of effective targeted therapies. Recent developments showed promising results for tumoral mutational status prediction using new deep learning based methods on histopathological images. However, it is still unknown whether these methods can be useful aside from sequencing methods for efficient population diagnosis. In this retrospective study, we use a standard prediction pipeline based on a convolutional neural network for the detection of cancer driver genomic alterations in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) breast (BRCA, n = 719), lung (LUAD, n = 541) and colon (COAD, n = 459) cancer datasets. We propose 3 diagnostic strategies using deep learning methods as first-line diagnostic tools. Focusing on cancer driver genes such as KRAS, EGFR or TP53, we show that these methods help reduce DNA sequencing by up to 49.9% with a high sensitivity (95%). In a context of limited resources, these methods increase sensitivity up to 69.8% at a 30% capacity of DNA sequencing tests, up to 85.1% at a 50% capacity, and up to 91.8% at a 70% capacity. These methods can also be used to prioritize patients with a positive predictive value up to 90.6% in the 10% patient most at risk of being mutated. Limitations of this study include the lack of external validation on non-TCGA data, dependence on prevalence of mutations in datasets, and use of a standard DL method on a limited dataset. Future studies using state-of-the-art methods and larger datasets are needed for better evaluation and clinical implementation.
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.