ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
DenseNet model incorporating hybrid attention mechanisms and clinical features for pancreatic cystic tumor classification.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- From radiomics to transformers in pancreatic cancer detection and prognosis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- LXNet: A lightweight CNN for lung disease classification from Chest X-ray with XAI-based interpretability.PloS one · 2026Article
- Applications of artificial intelligence in abdominal imaging.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Application of Artificial Intelligence in Pancreatic Cyst Management: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2025Review
- Article
- DenseNet model incorporating hybrid attention mechanisms and clinical features for pancreatic cystic tumor classification.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study is to develop a deep learning model capable of discriminating between pancreatic plasma cystic neoplasms (SCN) and mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCN) by leveraging patient-specific clinical features and imaging outcomes. The intent is to offer valuable diagnostic support to clinicians in their clinical decision-making processes.
methodsThe construction of the deep learning model involved utilizing a dataset comprising abdominal magnetic resonance T2-weighted images obtained from patients diagnosed with pancreatic cystic tumors at Changhai Hospital. The dataset comprised 207 patients with SCN and 93 patients with MCN, encompassing a total of 1761 images. The foundational architecture employed was DenseNet-161, augmented with a hybrid attention mechanism module. This integration aimed to enhance the network's attentiveness toward channel and spatial features, thereby amplifying its performance. Additionally, clinical features were incorporated prior to the fully connected layer of the network to actively contribute to subsequent decision-making processes, thereby significantly augmenting the model's classification accuracy. The final patient classification outcomes were derived using a joint voting methodology, and the model underwent comprehensive evaluation.
resultsUsing the five-fold cross validation, the accuracy of the classification model in this paper was 92.44%, with an AUC value of 0.971, a precision rate of 0.956, a recall rate of 0.919, a specificity of 0.933, and an F1-score of 0.936.
conclusionThis study demonstrates that the DenseNet model, which incorporates hybrid attention mechanisms and clinical features, is effective for distinguishing between SCN and MCN, and has potential application for the diagnosis of pancreatic cystic tumors in clinical practice.
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.