Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38765859›Full record

ReviewBiomedical reports2024

Applications and challenges of neural networks in otolaryngology (Review).

Iulian-Alexandru Taciuc, Mihai Dumitru, Daniela Vrinceanu, Mirela Gherghe, Felicia Manole, Andreea Marinescu, Crenguta Serboiu, Adriana Neagos, Adrian Costache

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomedical reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Iulian-Alexandru TaciucDepartment of Pathology, 'Carol Davila' University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 020021 Bucharest, Romania.
Mihai DumitruDepartment of ENT, 'Carol Davila' University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050751 Bucharest, Romania.
Daniela VrinceanuDepartment of ENT, 'Carol Davila' University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050751 Bucharest, Romania.
Mirela GhergheDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, 'Carol Davila' University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 022328 Bucharest, Romania.
Felicia ManoleDepartment of ENT, Faculty of Medicine University of Oradea, 410073 Oradea, Romania.
Andreea MarinescuDepartment of Radiology and Medical Imaging 'Carol Davila' University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050096 Bucharest, Romania.
Crenguta SerboiuDepartment of Cell Biology, Molecular and Histology, 'Carol Davila' University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050096 Bucharest, Romania.
Adriana NeagosDepartment of ENT, 'George Emil Palade' University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, 540142 Mures, Romania.
Adrian CostacheDepartment of Pathology, 'Carol Davila' University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 020021 Bucharest, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a topic of interest that is frequently debated in all research fields. The medical field is no exception, where several unanswered questions remain. When and how this field can benefit from AI support in daily routines are the most frequently asked questions. The present review aims to present the types of neural networks (NNs) available for development, discussing their advantages, disadvantages and how they can be applied practically. In addition, the present review summarizes how NNs (combined with various other features) have already been applied in studies in the ear nose throat research field, from assisting diagnosis to treatment management. Although the answer to this question regarding AI remains elusive, understanding the basics and types of applicable NNs can lead to future studies possibly using more than one type of NN. This approach may bypass the actual limitations in accuracy and relevance of information generated by AI. The proposed studies, the majority of which used convolutional NNs, obtained accuracies varying 70-98%, with a number of studies having the AI trained on a limited number of cases (<100 patients). The lack of standardization in AI protocols for research negatively affects data homogeneity and transparency of databases.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencehead and neck cancerneural networksotorhinolaryngology

Identifiers

PMID38765859
PMCPMC11099604

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.