ArticleScientific reports2023
Improved accuracy in colorectal cancer tissue decomposition through refinement of established deep learning solutions.
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.
- Deep learning in lower gastrointestinal cancer detection: Advances in endoscopic, radiologic, and histopathologic diagnostics.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Review
- Colorectal Lesion diagnosis using transformer and deep learning with multiscale feature interface.PloS one · 2026Article
- Diagnosis of colorectal cancer using residual transformer with mixed attention and explainable AI.PloS one · 2025Article
- Improving performance in colorectal cancer histology decomposition using deep and ensemble machine learning.Heliyon · 2024Article
- The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Microbial Diagnosis.Microorganisms · 2024Review
- Silicon versus Superbug: Assessing Machine Learning's Role in the Fight against Antimicrobial Resistance.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hematoxylin and eosin-stained biopsy slides are regularly available for colorectal cancer patients. These slides are often not used to define objective biomarkers for patient stratification and treatment selection. Standard biomarkers often pertain to costly and slow genetic tests. However, recent work has shown that relevant biomarkers can be extracted from these images using convolutional neural networks (CNNs). The CNN-based biomarkers predicted colorectal cancer patient outcomes comparably to gold standards. Extracting CNN-biomarkers is fast, automatic, and of minimal cost. CNN-based biomarkers rely on the ability of CNNs to recognize distinct tissue types from microscope whole slide images. The quality of these biomarkers (coined 'Deep Stroma') depends on the accuracy of CNNs in decomposing all relevant tissue classes. Improving tissue decomposition accuracy is essential for improving the prognostic potential of CNN-biomarkers. In this study, we implemented a novel training strategy to refine an established CNN model, which then surpassed all previous solutions . We obtained a 95.6% average accuracy in the external test set and 99.5% in the internal test set. Our approach reduced errors in biomarker-relevant classes, such as Lymphocytes, and was the first to include interpretability methods. These methods were used to better apprehend our model's limitations and capabilities.
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.