ArticleCureus2024
Automated Analysis of Nuclear Parameters in Oral Exfoliative Cytology Using Machine Learning.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Emerging Diagnostic Strategies for Oral Cancer and Oral Potentially Malignant Disorders: A PRISMA-Guided Scoping Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Current AI Applications and Challenges in Oral Pathology.Oral (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Oral Cancer: A Comprehensive Scoping Review of Diagnostic and Prognostic Applications.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Recurrent and Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer: Mechanisms of Treatment Failure, Treatment Paradigms, and New Horizons.Cancers · 2025Review
- AI in Cytopathology: A Narrative Umbrella Review on Innovations, Challenges, and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Head and Neck Cancer: Innovations, Applications, and Future Directions.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Review
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
backgroundAs oral cancer remains a major worldwide health concern, sophisticated diagnostic tools are needed to aid in early diagnosis. Non-invasive methods like exfoliative cytology, albeit with the help of artificial intelligence (AI), have drawn additional interest.
aimThe study aimed to harness the power of machine learning algorithms for the automated analysis of nuclear parameters in oral exfoliative cytology. Further, the analysis of two different AI systems, namely convoluted neural networks (CNN) and support vector machine (SVM), were compared for accuracy.
methodsA comparative diagnostic study was performed in two groups of patients (n=60). The control group without evidence of lesions (n=30) and the other group with clinically suspicious oral malignancy (n=30) were evaluated. All patients underwent cytological smears using an exfoliative cytology brush, followed by routine Hematoxylin and Eosin staining. Image preprocessing, data splitting, machine learning, model development, feature extraction, and model evaluation were done. An independent t-test was run on each nuclear characteristic, and Pearson's correlation coefficient test was performed with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 28.0. IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA).
resultsThe study found substantial variations between the study and control groups in nuclear size (p<0.05), nuclear shape (p<0.01), and chromatin distribution (p<0.001). The Pearson correlation coefficient of SVM was 0.6472, and CNN was 0.7790, showing that SVM had more accuracy.
conclusionThe availability of multidimensional datasets, combined with breakthroughs in high-performance computers and new deep-learning architectures, has resulted in an explosion of AI use in numerous areas of oncology research. The discerned diagnostic accuracy exhibited by the SVM and CNN models suggests prospective improvements in early detection rates, potentially improving patient outcomes and enhancing healthcare practices.
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.