Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40367024›Full record

ArticleBrazilian oral research2025

Cytopathological quantification of NORs using artificial intelligence to oral cancer screening.

Tatiana Wannmacher Lepper, Luara Nascimento do Amaral, Ana Laura Ferrares Espinosa, Igor Cavalcante Guedes, Maikel Maciel Rönnau, Natália Batista Daroit, Alex Nogueira Haas, Fernanda Visioli, Manuel Menezes de Oliveira Neto, Pantelis Varvaki Rados

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brazilian oral research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. 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

10 authors.

Tatiana Wannmacher LepperUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul - UFRGS, School of Dentistry, Department of Oral Pathology, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7905-0737
Luara Nascimento do AmaralUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul - UFRGS, School of Dentistry, Department of Oral Pathology, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7767-5047
Ana Laura Ferrares EspinosaUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul - UFRGS, School of Dentistry, Department of Oral Pathology, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0891-7043
Igor Cavalcante GuedesUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul - UFRGS, School of Dentistry, Department of Oral Pathology, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4073-4159
Maikel Maciel RönnauUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul - UFRGS, Informatics Institute, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3924-7329
Natália Batista DaroitUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul - UFRGS, School of Dentistry, Department of Oral Pathology, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0764-8999
Alex Nogueira HaasUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul - UFRGS, School of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0531-6234
Fernanda VisioliUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul - UFRGS, School of Dentistry, Department of Oral Pathology, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4033-8431
Manuel Menezes de Oliveira NetoUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul - UFRGS, Informatics Institute, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4957-9984
Pantelis Varvaki RadosUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul - UFRGS, School of Dentistry, Department of Oral Pathology, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9307-1980

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) remains the most prevalent neoplasm of the head and neck. In recent decades, the incidence and prevalence of OSCC have not significantly changed, highlighting the critical need to develop and implement new risk assessment measures. The present study aimed to define argyrophilic proteins of the nucleolar organizer region (AgNOR) cut-off risk points by oral exfoliative cytological smears comparing specialized humans with a convolutional neural network (CNN) system AgNOR Slide-Image Examiner. This study included four experimental groups: control, exposure to carcinogens (alcohol and tobacco), oral potentially malignant disorders, and OSCC. In the first phase, 50 cells were used for AgNOR quantification. In the second phase, AgNOR quantification was established in an automated manner using an AgNOR System - Slide Examiner (captured - bounding-boxed - CNN analysis). In phase 1, the cut-off point for considering a smear as suspicious was established at 3.69 AgNORs/nucleus with sensitivity of 86%, specificity of 93%, and accuracy of 90%. In phase 2, the analysis of the intraclass correlation coefficient of AgNORs attributed to the system and human was 0.896 (95% confidence interval = 0.875-0.915; p < 0.0001), and this quantification with the CNN was 20 min compared to 67 h, considering human analysis. The AgNOR Slide-Image Examiner successfully differentiated the nuclei and accurately quantified the number of NORs in oral cytological smears. The cut-off risk point of 3.69 AgNOR/nucleus indicates a suspicious sample may contribute to improvements in oral cancer screening.

Indexed as

Antigens, NuclearArtificial IntelligenceCarcinoma, Squamous CellEarly Detection of CancerMouth NeoplasmsNucleolus Organizer RegionCase-Control StudiesHumansNeural Networks, ComputerReference ValuesReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSensitivity and SpecificityAntigens, Nuclearnucleolar organizer region associated proteins

Identifiers

PMID40367024
PMCPMC12074076

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.