ReviewOncology research2021
Improvement method for cervical cancer detection: A comparative analysis.
Review in Oncology research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adaptive quadtree-based segmentation of nucleus and cytoplasm in pap-smear images: a lightweight and interpretable approach for automated cytology.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- DDOST is associated with tumor immunosuppressive microenvironment in cervical cancer.Discover 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical cancer is a prevalent and deadly cancer that affects women all over the world. It affects about 0.5 million women anually and results in over 0.3 million fatalities. Diagnosis of this cancer was previously done manually, which could result in false positives or negatives. The researchers are still contemplating how to detect cervical cancer automatically and how to evaluate Pap smear images. Hence, this paper has reviewed several detection methods from the previous researches that has been done before. This paper reviews pre-processing, detection method framework for nucleus detection, and analysis performance of the method selected. There are four methods based on a reviewed technique from previous studies that have been running through the experimental procedure using Matlab, and the dataset used is established Herlev Dataset. The results show that the highest performance assessment metric values obtain from Method 1: Thresholding and Trace region boundaries in a binary image with the values of precision 1.0, sensitivity 98.77%, specificity 98.76%, accuracy 98.77% and PSNR 25.74% for a single type of cell. Meanwhile, the average values of precision were 0.99, sensitivity 90.71%, specificity 96.55%, accuracy 92.91% and PSNR 16.22%. The experimental results are then compared to the existing methods from previous studies. They show that the improvement method is able to detect the nucleus of the cell with higher performance assessment values. On the other hand, the majority of current approaches can be used with either a single or a large number of cervical cancer smear images. This study might persuade other researchers to recognize the value of some of the existing detection techniques and offer a strong approach for developing and implementing new solutions.
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.