Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37540254›Full record

ReviewJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2023

A comprehensive analysis of recent advancements in cancer detection using machine learning and deep learning models for improved diagnostics.

Hari Mohan Rai, Joon Yoo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2023. 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. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  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

2 authors.

Hari Mohan RaiSchool of Computing, Gachon University, 1342 Seongnam-daero, Sujeong-gu, Seongnam-si, 13120, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea. drhmrai@gachon.ac.kr.
Joon YooSchool of Computing, Gachon University, 1342 Seongnam-daero, Sujeong-gu, Seongnam-si, 13120, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.

Funding

National Research Foundation of Korea NRF-2021R1F1A1063640
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThere are millions of people who lose their life due to several types of fatal diseases. Cancer is one of the most fatal diseases which may be due to obesity, alcohol consumption, infections, ultraviolet radiation, smoking, and unhealthy lifestyles. Cancer is abnormal and uncontrolled tissue growth inside the body which may be spread to other body parts other than where it has originated. Hence it is very much required to diagnose the cancer at an early stage to provide correct and timely treatment. Also, manual diagnosis and diagnostic error may cause of the death of many patients hence much research are going on for the automatic and accurate detection of cancer at early stage.

methodsIn this paper, we have done the comparative analysis of the diagnosis and recent advancement for the detection of various cancer types using traditional machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models. In this study, we have included four types of cancers, brain, lung, skin, and breast and their detection using ML and DL techniques. In extensive review we have included a total of 130 pieces of literature among which 56 are of ML-based and 74 are from DL-based cancer detection techniques. Only the peer reviewed research papers published in the recent 5-year span (2018-2023) have been included for the analysis based on the parameters, year of publication, feature utilized, best model, dataset/images utilized, and best accuracy. We have reviewed ML and DL-based techniques for cancer detection separately and included accuracy as the performance evaluation metrics to maintain the homogeneity while verifying the classifier efficiency.

resultsAmong all the reviewed literatures, DL techniques achieved the highest accuracy of 100%, while ML techniques achieved 99.89%. The lowest accuracy achieved using DL and ML approaches were 70% and 75.48%, respectively. The difference in accuracy between the highest and lowest performing models is about 28.8% for skin cancer detection. In addition, the key findings, and challenges for each type of cancer detection using ML and DL techniques have been presented. The comparative analysis between the best performing and worst performing models, along with overall key findings and challenges, has been provided for future research purposes. Although the analysis is based on accuracy as the performance metric and various parameters, the results demonstrate a significant scope for improvement in classification efficiency.

conclusionThe paper concludes that both ML and DL techniques hold promise in the early detection of various cancer types. However, the study identifies specific challenges that need to be addressed for the widespread implementation of these techniques in clinical settings. The presented results offer valuable guidance for future research in cancer detection, emphasizing the need for continued advancements in ML and DL-based approaches to improve diagnostic accuracy and ultimately save more lives.

Indexed as

Brain tumorBreast cancerCancer detectionCNNDeep learningFeature extractionGLCMLung cancerMachine learningSkin cancerState-of-art analysisSVM

Identifiers

PMID37540254
PMCPMC11796559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.