Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37875663›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Image based prognosis in head and neck cancer using convolutional neural networks: a case study in reproducibility and optimization.

Pedro Mateus, Leroy Volmer, Leonard Wee, Hugo J W L Aerts, Frank Hoebers, Andre Dekker, Inigo Bermejo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Pedro MateusDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands. pedro.mateus@maastro.nl.
Leroy VolmerDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Leonard WeeClinical Data Science, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Hugo J W L AertsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIM) Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Frank HoebersDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Andre DekkerDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Inigo BermejoDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the past decade, there has been a sharp increase in publications describing applications of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) in medical image analysis. However, recent reviews have warned of the lack of reproducibility of most such studies, which has impeded closer examination of the models and, in turn, their implementation in healthcare. On the other hand, the performance of these models is highly dependent on decisions on architecture and image pre-processing. In this work, we assess the reproducibility of three studies that use CNNs for head and neck cancer outcome prediction by attempting to reproduce the published results. In addition, we propose a new network structure and assess the impact of image pre-processing and model selection criteria on performance. We used two publicly available datasets: one with 298 patients for training and validation and another with 137 patients from a different institute for testing. All three studies failed to report elements required to reproduce their results thoroughly, mainly the image pre-processing steps and the random seed. Our model either outperforms or achieves similar performance to the existing models with considerably fewer parameters. We also observed that the pre-processing efforts significantly impact the model's performance and that some model selection criteria may lead to suboptimal models. Although there have been improvements in the reproducibility of deep learning models, our work suggests that wider implementation of reporting standards is required to avoid a reproducibility crisis.

Indexed as

Head and Neck NeoplasmsNeural Networks, ComputerHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedPrognosisReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID37875663
PMCPMC10598263

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.