ArticleScientific reports2025
Smart neural network and cognitive computing process for multi task nuclei detection segmentation and classification in breast cancer histopathology images.
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 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.
- Machine learning approach for predicting the severity risk of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome.Frontiers in big data · 2026Article
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
The detection, segmentation, and differentiation of benign and malignant nuclei from the histopathology images is a challenging task for the early diagnosis of breast cancer. Misinterpretation of True Negative (TN) and False Positive (FP) can generate incorrect results. The proposed Cognitive Computing Process (CCP) detects and segments the nuclei using Deep U-Net with Spatial Attention Mechanisms (SAM) and microns-per-pixel measurements to accurately locate and assess nuclei density. To separate the nuclei of benign and malignant, the patches are introduced to leverage the model's learning process. The proposed Smart Neural Network (SNN) models contain Smart Convolutional Neural Network (SCNN) and Deep Convolutional Neural Network (DCNN) to reduce incorrect results. Proposed CCP and SNN were evaluated using the BreakHis dataset, which contains 5547 images of benign and malignant samples at various magnifications (40×, 100×, 200×, 400×). These images were processed into patches, totaling 11,642, 9282, 9102, and 9678 patches, each 224 × 224 pixels. The CCP model outperformed state-of-the-art models UNet, Residual UNet (ResUNet), and Convolutional Neural Network Long Short-Term Memory (CNN-LSTM) with a Dice coefficient of 99.90%, an F1-score of 99.04%, a precision of 99.80%, and a recall of 99.76%. The learning process began with a learning rate of 0.01 and a decay rate of 0.8, and the SCNN achieved false negative and false positive rates of 0.04 and 0.05 for low-density nuclei at 400× and 40× magnification, respectively. In contrast, the Deep Convolutional Neural Network (DCNN) recorded rates of 0.02 and 0.01. For high-density patches, the SCNN model FN and FP rates of 0.0 and 0.08, while the DCNN reported 0.09 and 0.0. The proposed learning process with Smart Neural Networks (SNN) achieved high precision (77-99%), recall (75-99%), F1-score (75-99%), and an AUC of 86-100%. The combination of CCP and SNN improved accuracy over existing CNN models like ResNet50, VGG19, DenseNet109, DenseNet201, and VGG16. An ablation study showed a p-value of 0.00003 based on the AUC, highlighting the model's potential to enhance automated breast cancer diagnosis and support clinical decision-making.
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.