Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39913376›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Photodiagnosis and photodynamic recognition of cervical cancer with SEM and AFM images.

Sevcan Aytaç, Gürkan Özbey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

2 authors.

Sevcan AytaçDepartment of Electronic Technology, Firat University, Elazığ, Turkey.
Gürkan ÖzbeyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Private Anadolu Hosital, Elazığ, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0001-7961-0087

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

So far, the number of patients who die from cancer is quite high. Continuation of early detection research is important to reduce the number of deaths due to cancer. At the time of the literature review, images of the same patients taken from Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) and Atomic Force Microscope (AFM) for early diagnosis of cervix cancer have not been addressed to date. This article, Photodiagnosis and Photodynamics with SEM and AFM images are valuable in recognizing cervical cancer and starting treatment early. Simultaneous examination of the, Photodiagnosis and Photodynamics with SEM and AFM cervix images of patients will provide us with a far more powerful solution than a one-way solution. Daubechies (db2, db3, db4, and db5), Coiflet (coif5, coif4, coif3, and coif2), Symlet (sym5, sym4, sym3, and sym2), and Biorthogonal (bior1.3, bior2.8, bior1.5, and bior3.3) 16 discrete wavelet transformation families (DWTF) have been applied to AFM and SEM images. One approximate and three detail coefficients have been obtained for each one AFM and SEM cervix images. Homogeneity, contrast, angular second moment, entropy, mean, standard deviation, correlation, cluster prominence, dissimilarity, and cluster shade values have been calculated for each of these one approximate and three detail coefficients. The classification rate found by the averages of the results obtained from the DWTF_JSD, DWTF_HD and DWTF_TD algorithms for AFM and SEM cervix images are 98.29% and 97.10%, respectively. According to these results, it has been determined that SEM images have lower classification rate than AFM images. It has been also observed that the surface roughness of the mAFM images was larger than nAFM and bAFM images. But, it was observed that the volume of particles of the mAFM images has been smaller than nAFM and bAFM images.

Indexed as

Microscopy, Atomic ForceMicroscopy, Electron, ScanningUterine Cervical NeoplasmsFemaleHumans

Identifiers

PMID39913376
PMCPMC11801595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.