ArticlePloS one2025
Photodiagnosis and photodynamic recognition of cervical cancer with SEM and AFM images.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A multimodal scanning electron microscopy-atomic force microscopy images for early cervical cancer detection using discrete wavelet transform-derived features and divergence-based classification.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- SegResDeiT: a hybrid SegNet-ResNet-50-DeiT framework for automated cervical cancer segmentation and classification.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.