ArticleJournal of ovarian research2024
Machine learning models in evaluating the malignancy risk of ovarian tumors: a comparative study.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence for ovarian cancer diagnosis via ultrasound: a systematic review and quantitative assessment of model performance.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Pooled it
- [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 · 2026Article
- Detection of Valve Vegetations in Native and Prosthetic Valves using Echocardiographic Radiomics and Deep Learning on Transesophageal Echocardiography Images.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2026Article
- Multitask deep learning models for ultrasound image analysis: identification of high-grade serous ovarian cancer and segmentation of tumor regions and intratumoral solid components.Journal of ovarian research · 2026Article
- Development and validation of an artificial intelligence-based model for diagnosing benign, borderline, and malignant adnexal masses.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in ovarian cancer: transforming detection, treatment, and prevention.Journal of ovarian research · 2026Review
- Machine Learning Models for Predicting Gynecological Cancers: Advances, Challenges, and Future Directions.Cancers · 2025Review
- Hybrid artificial intelligence echogenic components-based diagnosis of adnexal masses on ultrasound.Medical physics · 2025Article
- A pioneering artificial intelligence tool to predict treatment outcomes in ovarian cancer via diagnostic laparoscopy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Progress in the Application of Artificial Intelligence in Ultrasound-Assisted Medical Diagnosis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Validation of machine learning-based models to predict and explain the risk of ovarian cancer: a multicentric study onFrontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Metformin in gynecological disorders: pathogenic insights and therapeutic implications.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
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.