ArticleScientific reports2024
Deep learning system for true- and pseudo-invasion in colorectal polyps.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into colorectal cancer reporting.The Journal of pathology · 2026Review
- A deep active learning framework for mitotic figure detection with minimal manual annotation and labelling.Histopathology · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Over 15 million colonoscopies were performed yearly in North America, during which biopsies were taken for pathological examination to identify abnormalities. Distinguishing between true- and pseudo-invasion in colon polyps is critical in treatment planning. Surgical resection of the colon is often the treatment option for true invasion, whereas observation is recommended for pseudo-invasion. The task of identifying true- vs pseudo-invasion, however, could be highly challenging. There is no specialized software tool for this task, and no well-annotated dataset is available. In our work, we obtained (only) 150 whole-slide images (WSIs) from the London Health Science Centre. We built three deep neural networks representing different magnifications in WSIs, mimicking the workflow of pathologists. We also built an online tool for pathologists to annotate WSIs to train our deep neural networks. Results showed that our novel system classifies tissue types with 95.3% accuracy and differentiates true- and pseudo-invasions with 83.9% accuracy. The system's efficiency is comparable to an expert pathologist. Our system can also be easily adjusted to serve as a confirmatory or screening tool. Our system (available at http://ai4path.ca ) will lead to better, faster patient care and reduced healthcare costs.
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.