ArticlePloS one2024
Problems of magnetic resonance diagnosis for gastric-type mucin-positive cervical lesions of the uterus and its solutions using artificial intelligence.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo reveal problems of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for diagnosing gastric-type mucin-positive (GMPLs) and gastric-type mucin-negative (GMNLs) cervical lesions.
methodsWe selected 172 patients suspected to have lobular endocervical glandular hyperplasia; their pelvic MR images were categorised into the training (n = 132) and validation (n = 40) groups. The images of the validation group were read twice by three pairs of six readers to reveal the accuracy, area under the curve (AUC), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The readers evaluated three images (sagittal T2-weighted image [T2WI], axial T2WI, and axial T1-weighted image [T1WI]) in every patient. The pre-trained convolutional neural network (pCNN) was used to differentiate between GMPLs and GMNLs and perform four-fold cross-validation using cases in the training group. The accuracy and AUC were obtained using the MR images in the validation group. For each case, three images (sagittal T2WI and axial T2WI/T1WI) were entered into the CNN. Calculations were performed twice independently. ICC (2,1) between first- and second-time CNN was evaluated, and these results were compared with those of readers.
resultsThe highest accuracy of readers was 77.50%. The highest ICC (1,1) between a pair of readers was 0.750. All ICC (2,1) values were <0.7, indicating poor agreement; the highest accuracy of CNN was 82.50%. The AUC did not differ significantly between the CNN and readers. The ICC (2,1) of CNN was 0.965.
conclusionsVariation in the inter-reader or intra-reader accuracy in MRI diagnosis limits differentiation between GMPL and GMNL. CNN is nearly as accurate as readers but improves the reproducibility of diagnosis.
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.