Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38273847›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oncology2023

Deep-learning models for image-based gynecological cancer diagnosis: a systematic review and meta- analysis.

Asefa Adimasu Taddese, Binyam Chakilu Tilahun, Tadesse Awoke, Asmamaw Atnafu, Adane Mamuye, Shegaw Anagaw Mengiste

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Asefa Adimasu TaddeseDepartment of Health Informatics, Institute of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Binyam Chakilu TilahunDepartment of Health Informatics, Institute of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Tadesse AwokeDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Institute of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Asmamaw AtnafueHealthlab Ethiopia Research Center, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Adane MamuyeeHealthlab Ethiopia Research Center, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Shegaw Anagaw MengisteDepartment of Business, History and Social Sciences, University of Southeastern Norway, Vestfold, Vestfold, Norway.
University of Gondar · ETAddis Ababa University · ETUniversity of South-Eastern Norway · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AIdeep learninggynaecological cancer diagnosismedical image analysissystematic review and meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID38273847
PMCPMC10809847
OpenAlexW4390740227

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.