Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38686367›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024

Explainable AI-driven model for gastrointestinal cancer classification.

Faisal Binzagr

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

1 author.

Faisal BinzagrDepartment of Computer Science, King Abdulaziz University, Rabigh, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although the detection procedure has been shown to be highly effective, there are several obstacles to overcome in the usage of AI-assisted cancer cell detection in clinical settings. These issues stem mostly from the failure to identify the underlying processes. Because AI-assisted diagnosis does not offer a clear decision-making process, doctors are dubious about it. In this instance, the advent of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), which offers explanations for prediction models, solves the AI black box issue. The SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) approach, which results in the interpretation of model predictions, is the main emphasis of this work. The intermediate layer in this study was a hybrid model made up of three Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) (InceptionV3, InceptionResNetV2, and VGG16) that combined their predictions. The KvasirV2 dataset, which comprises pathological symptoms associated to cancer, was used to train the model. Our combined model yielded an accuracy of 93.17% and an F1 score of 97%. After training the combined model, we use SHAP to analyze images from these three groups to provide an explanation of the decision that affects the model prediction.

Indexed as

ensemble learningexplainable AIgastrointestinal cancerSHAPtransfer learning

Identifiers

PMID38686367
PMCPMC11056557

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.