ArticleBMJ open2024
State-of-the-art performance of deep learning methods for pre-operative radiologic staging of colorectal cancer lymph node metastasis: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Radiological staging clinical decision support model for rectal cancer lymph node metastasis detection on MRI.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Role of MRI radiomics in deep learning-based prediction of intestinal diseases.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Review
- Lymph node metastasis in a patient with carcinomaMolecular and clinical oncology · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Empowered Radiology-Current Status and Critical Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the current state-of-the-art in deep learning methods applied to pre-operative radiologic staging of colorectal cancer lymph node metastasis. Specifically, by evaluating the data, methodology and validation of existing work, as well as the current use of explainable AI in this fast-moving domain.
designScoping review. DATA SOURCES: Academic databases MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched with a date range of 1 January 2018 to 1 February 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Includes any English language research articles or conference papers published since 2018 which have applied deep learning methods for feature extraction and classification of colorectal cancer lymph nodes on pre-operative radiologic imaging. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Key results and characteristics for each included study were extracted using a shared template. A narrative synthesis was then conducted to qualitatively integrate and interpret these findings.
resultsThis scoping review covers 13 studies which met the inclusion criteria. The deep learning methods had an area under the curve score of 0.856 (0.796 to 0.916) for patient-level lymph node diagnosis and 0.904 (0.841 to 0.967) for individual lymph node assessment, given with a 95% confidence interval. Most studies have fundamental limitations including unrepresentative data, inadequate methodology, poor model validation and limited explainability techniques.
conclusionsDeep learning methods have demonstrated the potential for accurately diagnosing colorectal cancer lymph nodes using pre-operative radiologic imaging. However, several methodological and validation flaws such as selection bias and lack of external validation make it difficult to trust the results. This review has uncovered a research gap for robust, representative and explainable deep learning methods that are end-to-end from automatic lymph node detection to the diagnosis of lymph node metastasis.
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.