ArticlePLOS digital health2024
Assessing generalizability of an AI-based visual test for cervical cancer screening.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Concordance of AI-Assisted and Hybrid AI-Assisted Cervical Imaging Systems with Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid for Cervical Precancer Screening in West Bandung, Indonesia.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- The Callascope: A portable, user-friendly, speculum-free device for diagnostic imaging of cervical cancer precursor lesions.npj women's health · 2026Article
- Cancer Screening and Prevention in MENA and Mediterranean Populations: A Multi-Level Analysis of Barriers, Knowledge Gaps, and Interventions Across Indigenous and Diaspora Communities.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Initial evaluation of a new cervical screening strategy combining human papillomavirus genotyping and automated visual evaluation: the Human Papillomavirus-Automated Visual Evaluation Consortium.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- Generalizable deep neural networks for image quality classification of cervical images.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Advancements in postoperative pancreatic fistula: a comprehensive review of predictive factors, therapies, scoring systems and ongoing trials.eGastroenterology · 2025Review
- Utility of colposcopy for the screening and management of cervical cancer in Africa: a cross-sectional analysis of providers' training and practices.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Challenges faced in managing cervical cancer patients who present post-operatively with more advanced disease in LMICs: Case studies from Cameroon.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2024Article
- Design of the HPV-automated visual evaluation (PAVE) study: Validating a novel cervical screening strategy.eLife · 2024Article
- The Future of Cervical Cancer Screening.International journal of women's health · 2024Review
- Validation in Zambia of a cervical screening strategy including HPV genotyping and artificial intelligence (AI)-based automated visual evaluation.Infectious agents and cancer · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
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
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.