ArticlePloS one2024
Deep learning identifies histopathologic changes in bladder cancers associated with smoke exposure status.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Smoke exposure is associated with bladder cancer (BC). However, little is known about whether the histologic changes of BC can predict the status of smoke exposure. Given this knowledge gap, the current study investigated the potential association between histology images and smoke exposure status. A total of 483 whole-slide histology images of 285 unique cases of BC were available from multiple centers for BC diagnosis. A deep learning model was developed to predict the smoke exposure status and externally validated on BC cases. The development set consisted of 66 cases from two centers. The external validation consisted of 94 cases from remaining centers for patients who either never smoked cigarettes or were active smokers at the time of diagnosis. The threshold for binary categorization was fixed to the median confidence score (65) of the development set. On external validation, AUC was used to assess the randomness of predicted smoke status; we utilized latent feature presentation to determine common histologic patterns for smoke exposure status and mixed effect logistic regression models determined the parameter independence from BC grade, gender, time to diagnosis, and age at diagnosis. We used 2,000-times bootstrap resampling to estimate the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) on the external validation set. The results showed an AUC of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.58-0.76), indicating non-randomness of model classification, with a specificity of 51.2% and sensitivity of 82.2%. Multivariate analyses revealed that our model provided an independent predictor for smoke exposure status derived from histology images, with an odds ratio of 1.710 (95% CI: 1.148-2.54). Common histologic patterns of BC were found in active or never smokers. In conclusion, deep learning reveals histopathologic features of BC that are predictive of smoke exposure and, therefore, may provide valuable information regarding smoke exposure status.
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.