ArticleScientific reports2023
Image based prognosis in head and neck cancer using convolutional neural networks: a case study in reproducibility and optimization.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Convolutional neural network analysis of cervical CT images: classification of Kikuchi disease, lymphoma, lymphadenitis, and tuberculosis.Biomedical engineering online · 2026Article
- Spatial Radiomic Graphs for Outcome Prediction in Radiation Therapy-treated Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Using Pretreatment CT.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2025Article
- End-to-end prediction of clinical outcomes in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma with foundation model-based multiple instance learning.BMC artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- End-to-end reproducible AI pipelines in radiology using the cloud.Nature communications · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.