Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39984572›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Generalizable deep neural networks for image quality classification of cervical images.

Syed Rakin Ahmed, Brian Befano, Didem Egemen, Ana Cecilia Rodriguez, Kanan T Desai, Jose Jeronimo, Kayode O Ajenifuja, Christopher Clark, Rebecca Perkins, Nicole G Campos and 12 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. The Future of Cervical Cancer Screening.International journal of women's health · 2024
    Review
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

22 authors.

Syed Rakin AhmedAthinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02129, USA. syedrakin_ahmed@fas.harvard.edu.
Brian BefanoInformation Management Services, Calverton, MD, 20705, USA.
Didem EgemenClinical Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Genetics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA.
Ana Cecilia RodriguezClinical Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Genetics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA.
Kanan T DesaiClinical Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Genetics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA.
Jose JeronimoClinical Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Genetics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA.
Kayode O AjenifujaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital, Ile Ife, Nigeria.
Christopher ClarkDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado Anschutz, Denver, CO, 80045, USA.
Rebecca PerkinsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
Nicole G CamposCenter for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Federica InturrisiClinical Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Genetics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA.
Nicolas WentzensenClinical Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Genetics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA.
Paul HanDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, USA.
Diego GuillenPathologist Consultant, San José, Costa Rica.
Judy NormanWomen's Health, Mercy Medical Center, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Andrew T GoldsteinGynecologic Cancers Research Foundation, New York, USA.
Margaret M MadeleineProgram in Epidemiology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, USA.
Yeycy DonastorgHIV Vaccine Trials Research Unit, Instituto Dermatológico y Cirugía de la Piel "Dr. Huberto Bogaert Díaz", Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.
Mark SchiffmanClinical Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Genetics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA.
Silvia de SanjoseClinical Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Genetics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA.
Jayashree Kalpathy-CramerAthinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02129, USA.
PAVE Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Successful translation of artificial intelligence (AI) models into clinical practice, across clinical domains, is frequently hindered by the lack of image quality control. Diagnostic models are often trained on images with no denotation of image quality in the training data; this, in turn, can lead to misclassifications by these models when implemented in the clinical setting. In the case of cervical images, quality classification is a crucial task to ensure accurate detection of precancerous lesions or cancer; this is true for both gynecologic-oncologists' (manual) and diagnostic AI models' (automated) predictions. Factors that impact the quality of a cervical image include but are not limited to blur, poor focus, poor light, noise, obscured view of the cervix due to mucus and/or blood, improper position, and over- and/or under-exposure. Utilizing a multi-level image quality ground truth denoted by providers, we generated an image quality classifier following a multi-stage model selection process that investigated several key design choices on a multi-heterogenous "SEED" dataset of 40,534 images. We subsequently validated the best model on an external dataset ("EXT"), comprising 1,340 images captured using a different device and acquired in different geographies from "SEED". We assessed the relative impact of various axes of data heterogeneity, including device, geography, and ground-truth rater on model performance. Our best performing model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of 0.92 (low quality, LQ vs. rest) and 0.93 (high quality, HQ vs. rest), and a minimal total %extreme misclassification (%EM) of 2.8% on the internal validation set. Our model also generalized well externally, achieving corresponding AUROCs of 0.83 and 0.82, and %EM of 3.9% when tested out-of-the-box on the external validation ("EXT") set. Additionally, our model was geography agnostic with no meaningful difference in performance across geographies, did not exhibit catastrophic forgetting upon retraining with new data, and mimicked the overall/average ground truth rater behavior well. Our work represents one of the first efforts at generating and externally validating an image quality classifier across multiple axes of data heterogeneity to aid in visual diagnosis of cervical precancer and cancer. We hope that this will motivate the accompaniment of adequate guardrails for AI-based pipelines to account for image quality and generalizability concerns.

Indexed as

Cervix UteriDeep LearningImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedImage Processing, Computer-AssistedNeural Networks, ComputerUterine Cervical NeoplasmsFemaleHumansArtificial intelligenceCervical cancer screeningDeep learningImage quality

Identifiers

PMID39984572
PMCPMC11845747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.