Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39506832›Full record

ArticleJournal of ovarian research2024

Machine learning models in evaluating the malignancy risk of ovarian tumors: a comparative study.

Xin He, Xiang-Hui Bai, Hui Chen, Wei-Wei Feng

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ovarian research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. [Medical prior-guided TabMap deep learning model for ovarian cancer prediction and interpretability analysis].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

4 authors.

Xin HeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200025, P.R. China.
Xiang-Hui BaiPhilips Health Technology (China) Co., Ltd. Shanghai Branch, 718 Lingshi Road, Shanghai, 200072, P.R. China.
Hui ChenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200025, P.R. China. ch11516@rjh.com.cn.
Wei-Wei FengDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200025, P.R. China. fww12066@rjh.com.cn.

Funding

Medical Innovation Project of Shanghai Science and Technology Commission 20Y11914000National Natural Science Foundation of China 82172601Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai Science and Technology Commission 20ZR1433700
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe study aimed to compare the diagnostic efficacy of the machine learning models with expert subjective assessment (SA) in assessing the malignancy risk of ovarian tumors using transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS).

methodsThe retrospective single-center diagnostic study included 1555 consecutive patients from January 2019 to May 2021. Using this dataset, Residual Network(ResNet), Densely Connected Convolutional Network(DenseNet), Vision Transformer(ViT), and Swin Transformer models were established and evaluated separately or combined with Cancer antigen 125 (CA 125). The diagnostic performance was then compared with SA.

resultsOf the 1555 patients, 76.9% were benign, while 23.1% were malignant (including borderline). When differentiating the malignant from ovarian tumors, the SA had an AUC of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.93-0.99), sensitivity of 87.2%, and specificity of 98.4%. Except for Vision Transformer, other machine learning models had diagnostic performance comparable to that of the expert. The DenseNet model had an AUC of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.86-0.95), sensitivity of 84.6%, and specificity of 95.1%. The ResNet50 model had an AUC of 0.91 (0.85-0.95). The Swin Transformer model had an AUC of 0.92 (0.87-0.96), sensitivity of 87.2%, and specificity of 94.3%. There was a statistically significant difference between the Vision Transformer and SA, and between the Vision Transformer and Swin Transformer models (AUC: 0.87 vs. 0.97, P = 0.01; AUC: 0.87 vs. 0.92, P = 0.04). Adding CA125 did not improve the diagnostic performance of the models in distinguishing benign and malignant ovarian tumors.

conclusionThe deep learning model of TVUS can be used in ovarian cancer evaluation, and its diagnostic performance is comparable to that of expert assessment.

Indexed as

Machine LearningOvarian NeoplasmsAdultAgedCA-125 AntigenFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesYoung AdultCA-125 AntigenDiagnostic modelsMachine learningOvarian cancerUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID39506832
PMCPMC11539702

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.