ArticlePloS one2024
Deep multiple instance learning versus conventional deep single instance learning for interpretable oral cancer detection.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep learning-based automated detection of oral squamous cell carcinoma in histopathological images: a comparative study of five CNN architectures.Odontology · 2026Article
- Emerging Diagnostic Strategies for Oral Cancer and Oral Potentially Malignant Disorders: A PRISMA-Guided Scoping Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Redefining Cytotechnologist Practice in Sweden: National Survey on Workload, Expanded Roles, and Future Competency Needs.Acta cytologica · 2026Article
- A histopathology image-based computer-aided classification study for oral squamous cell carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Review
- Updates, Applications and Future Directions of Deep Learning for the Images Processing in the Field of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current medical standard for setting an oral cancer (OC) diagnosis is histological examination of a tissue sample taken from the oral cavity. This process is time-consuming and more invasive than an alternative approach of acquiring a brush sample followed by cytological analysis. Using a microscope, skilled cytotechnologists are able to detect changes due to malignancy; however, introducing this approach into clinical routine is associated with challenges such as a lack of resources and experts. To design a trustworthy OC detection system that can assist cytotechnologists, we are interested in deep learning based methods that can reliably detect cancer, given only per-patient labels (thereby minimizing annotation bias), and also provide information regarding which cells are most relevant for the diagnosis (thereby enabling supervision and understanding). In this study, we perform a comparison of two approaches suitable for OC detection and interpretation: (i) conventional single instance learning (SIL) approach and (ii) a modern multiple instance learning (MIL) method. To facilitate systematic evaluation of the considered approaches, we, in addition to a real OC dataset with patient-level ground truth annotations, also introduce a synthetic dataset-PAP-QMNIST. This dataset shares several properties of OC data, such as image size and large and varied number of instances per bag, and may therefore act as a proxy model of a real OC dataset, while, in contrast to OC data, it offers reliable per-instance ground truth, as defined by design. PAP-QMNIST has the additional advantage of being visually interpretable for non-experts, which simplifies analysis of the behavior of methods. For both OC and PAP-QMNIST data, we evaluate performance of the methods utilizing three different neural network architectures. Our study indicates, somewhat surprisingly, that on both synthetic and real data, the performance of the SIL approach is better or equal to the performance of the MIL approach. Visual examination by cytotechnologist indicates that the methods manage to identify cells which deviate from normality, including malignant cells as well as those suspicious for dysplasia. We share the code as open source.
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.