Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39356713›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2024

Assessing generalizability of an AI-based visual test for cervical cancer screening.

Syed Rakin Ahmed, Didem Egemen, Brian Befano, Ana Cecilia Rodriguez, Jose Jeronimo, Kanan Desai, Carolina Teran, Karla Alfaro, Joel Fokom-Domgue, Kittipat Charoenkwan and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The Future of Cervical Cancer Screening.International journal of women's health · 2024
    Review
  11. 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

19 authors.

Syed Rakin AhmedAthinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1615-8633
Didem EgemenClinical Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Genetics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Brian BefanoInformation Management Services, Calverton, Maryland, United States of America.
Ana Cecilia RodriguezClinical Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Genetics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Jose JeronimoClinical Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Genetics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Kanan DesaiClinical Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Genetics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8992-5944
Carolina TeranFacultad de Medicina, Universidad Mayor, Real y Pontificia de San Francisco Xavier de Chuquisaca, Sucre, Bolivia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1833-7758
Karla AlfaroBasic Health International, El Salvador.
Joel Fokom-DomgueCameroon Baptist Convention Health Services, Bamenda, North West Region, Cameroon.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4722-9262
Kittipat CharoenkwanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Chemtai MungoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3655-4721
Rebecca LuckettBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Rakiya SaiduDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and South African Medical Research Council Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, University of Cape Town, Cape Town.
Taina RaiolCenter for Epidemiology and Health Surveillance, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz), Brasília, Federal District, Brazil.
Ana RibeiroCenter for Epidemiology and Health Surveillance, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz), Brasília, Federal District, Brazil.
Julia C GageCenter for Global Health, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5259-6385
Silvia de SanjoseClinical Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Genetics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Jayashree Kalpathy-CramerAthinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Mark SchiffmanClinical Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Genetics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.

Funding

Developing Data-Driven Cancer ResearchersT32CA009168 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI STEPHEN M SCHWARTZ, MICHAEL Chiao-An WU · 1985 to 2026
$10.1M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009168
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A number of challenges hinder artificial intelligence (AI) models from effective clinical translation. Foremost among these challenges is the lack of generalizability, which is defined as the ability of a model to perform well on datasets that have different characteristics from the training data. We recently investigated the development of an AI pipeline on digital images of the cervix, utilizing a multi-heterogeneous dataset of 9,462 women (17,013 images) and a multi-stage model selection and optimization approach, to generate a diagnostic classifier able to classify images of the cervix into "normal", "indeterminate" and "precancer/cancer" (denoted as "precancer+") categories. In this work, we investigate the performance of this multiclass classifier on external data not utilized in training and internal validation, to assess the generalizability of the classifier when moving to new settings. We assessed both the classification performance and repeatability of our classifier model across the two axes of heterogeneity present in our dataset: image capture device and geography, utilizing both out-of-the-box inference and retraining with external data. Our results demonstrate that device-level heterogeneity affects our model performance more than geography-level heterogeneity. Classification performance of our model is strong on images from a new geography without retraining, while incremental retraining with inclusion of images from a new device progressively improves classification performance on that device up to a point of saturation. Repeatability of our model is relatively unaffected by data heterogeneity and remains strong throughout. Our work supports the need for optimized retraining approaches that address data heterogeneity (e.g., when moving to a new device) to facilitate effective use of AI models in new settings.

Identifiers

PMID39356713
PMCPMC11446437

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.