Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38523785›Full record

ArticleiScience2024

Multi-modality deep learning model reaches high prediction accuracy in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer.

Zimo Wang, Shuyu Luo, Jing Chen, Yang Jiao, Chen Cui, Siyuan Shi, Yang Yang, Junyi Zhao, Yitao Jiang, Yujuan Zhang and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in iScience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Deep Learning Approach for Biomedical Image Classification.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Radiomics and radiogenomics in ovarian cancer: a review with a focus on ultrasound applications.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

14 authors.

Zimo WangSecond Clinical College of Jinan University, Department of Ultrasound, Shenzhen People's Hospital, First Affiliated Hospital of Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen Medical Ultrasound Engineering Center. Shenzhen, Guangdong 518020, China.
Shuyu LuoSecond Clinical College of Jinan University, Department of Ultrasound, Shenzhen People's Hospital, First Affiliated Hospital of Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen Medical Ultrasound Engineering Center. Shenzhen, Guangdong 518020, China.
Jing ChenSecond Clinical College of Jinan University, Department of Ultrasound, Shenzhen People's Hospital, First Affiliated Hospital of Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen Medical Ultrasound Engineering Center. Shenzhen, Guangdong 518020, China.
Yang JiaoSecond Clinical College of Jinan University, Department of Ultrasound, Shenzhen People's Hospital, First Affiliated Hospital of Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen Medical Ultrasound Engineering Center. Shenzhen, Guangdong 518020, China.
Chen CuiIlluminate, LLC, 6B, Building 5, Tianyu Xiangshan Garden, No. 33, Nongxuan Road, Futian District, Donghai Community, Xiangmihu Street, Futian District, Shenzhen 518000, China.
Siyuan ShiIlluminate, LLC, 6B, Building 5, Tianyu Xiangshan Garden, No. 33, Nongxuan Road, Futian District, Donghai Community, Xiangmihu Street, Futian District, Shenzhen 518000, China.
Yang YangIlluminate, LLC, 6B, Building 5, Tianyu Xiangshan Garden, No. 33, Nongxuan Road, Futian District, Donghai Community, Xiangmihu Street, Futian District, Shenzhen 518000, China.
Junyi ZhaoUniversity of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai 201203, China.
Yitao JiangIlluminate, LLC, 6B, Building 5, Tianyu Xiangshan Garden, No. 33, Nongxuan Road, Futian District, Donghai Community, Xiangmihu Street, Futian District, Shenzhen 518000, China.
Yujuan ZhangSecond Clinical College of Jinan University, Department of Ultrasound, Shenzhen People's Hospital, First Affiliated Hospital of Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen Medical Ultrasound Engineering Center. Shenzhen, Guangdong 518020, China.
Fanhua XuSecond Clinical College of Jinan University, Department of Ultrasound, Shenzhen People's Hospital, First Affiliated Hospital of Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen Medical Ultrasound Engineering Center. Shenzhen, Guangdong 518020, China.
Jinfeng XuSecond Clinical College of Jinan University, Department of Ultrasound, Shenzhen People's Hospital, First Affiliated Hospital of Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen Medical Ultrasound Engineering Center. Shenzhen, Guangdong 518020, China.
Qi LinSecond Clinical College of Jinan University, Department of Ultrasound, Shenzhen People's Hospital, First Affiliated Hospital of Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen Medical Ultrasound Engineering Center. Shenzhen, Guangdong 518020, China.
Fajin DongSecond Clinical College of Jinan University, Department of Ultrasound, Shenzhen People's Hospital, First Affiliated Hospital of Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen Medical Ultrasound Engineering Center. Shenzhen, Guangdong 518020, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We evaluated the diagnostic performance of a multimodal deep-learning (DL) model for ovarian mass differential diagnosis. This single-center retrospective study included 1,054 ultrasound (US)-detected ovarian tumors (699 benign and 355 malignant). Patients were randomly divided into training (n = 675), validation (n = 169), and testing (n = 210) sets. The model was developed using ResNet-50. Three DL-based models were proposed for benign-malignant classification of these lesions: single-modality model that only utilized US images; dual-modality model that used US images and menopausal status as inputs; and multi-modality model that integrated US images, menopausal status, and serum indicators. After 5-fold cross-validation, 210 lesions were tested. We evaluated the three models using the area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. The multimodal model outperformed the single- and dual-modality models with 93.80% accuracy and 0.983 AUC. The Multimodal ResNet-50 DL model outperformed the single- and dual-modality models in identifying benign and malignant ovarian tumors.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligencecancerdiagnostics

Identifiers

PMID38523785
PMCPMC10959660

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.