ReviewFrontiers in oncology2023
Deep-learning models for image-based gynecological cancer diagnosis: a systematic review and meta- analysis.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence Performance in Image-Based Cancer Identification: Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- PET Imaging in Vulvar Cancer: A Literature Review of the Current Evidence and Clinical Applications.Cancers · 2026Review
- Enhanced ovarian cancer diagnosis using deep learning on pelvic ultrasound with integrated clinical data: retrospective multicenter study.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Gynecologic Oncology: Current Applications, Clinical Challenges, and Future Perspectives.Cureus · 2026Review
- Role of Three-Dimensional Convolution Neural Networks (3D-CNN) in Image Processing and Recognition in Oncology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of hematology-oncology and stem cell research · 2026Review
- Inflammasomes meet organoids and artificial intelligence: unraveling the complexity of gynecological inflammation.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Transforming cervical cancer pathological diagnosis through artificial intelligence: progress, performance, and barriers to clinical implementation.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Developing a deep learning model for predicting ovarian cancer in Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Ultrasound (O-RADS US) Category 4 lesions: A multicenter study.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024Article
- MRI-Based Radiomics as a Promising Noninvasive Diagnostic Technique for Adenomyosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Gynecological cancers pose a significant threat to women worldwide, especially those in resource-limited settings. Human analysis of images remains the primary method of diagnosis, but it can be inconsistent and inaccurate. Deep learning (DL) can potentially enhance image-based diagnosis by providing objective and accurate results. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the recent advances of deep learning (DL) techniques for gynecological cancer diagnosis using various images and explore their future implications. Methods: The study followed the PRISMA-2 guidelines, and the protocol was registered in PROSPERO. Five databases were searched for articles published from January 2018 to December 2022. Articles that focused on five types of gynecological cancer and used DL for diagnosis were selected. Two reviewers assessed the articles for eligibility and quality using the QUADAS-2 tool. Data was extracted from each study, and the performance of DL techniques for gynecological cancer classification was estimated by pooling and transforming sensitivity and specificity values using a random-effects model. Results: The review included 48 studies, and the meta-analysis included 24 studies. The studies used different images and models to diagnose different gynecological cancers. The most popular models were ResNet, VGGNet, and UNet. DL algorithms showed more sensitivity but less specificity compared to machine learning (ML) methods. The AUC of the summary receiver operating characteristic plot was higher for DL algorithms than for ML methods. Of the 48 studies included, 41 were at low risk of bias. Conclusion: This review highlights the potential of DL in improving the screening and diagnosis of gynecological cancer, particularly in resource-limited settings. However, the high heterogeneity and quality of the studies could affect the validity of the results. Further research is necessary to validate the findings of this study and to explore the potential of DL in improving gynecological cancer diagnosis.
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.