ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2026
Deep learning for classification of aggressive versus non-aggressive central giant cell granuloma using whole-slide histopathology images.
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2026. 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.
- Evaluation of CD3 and CD20 Lymphocytes and Mast Cells in the Microenvironment of Central Giant Cell Granuloma, Peripheral Giant Cell Granuloma, and Giant Cell Tumor of Bone.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microscopic images of aggressive and non-aggressive cases of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) were analyzed by deep learning algorithms in order to assess its potential as a tool in predicting the biological behavior of CGCG. CGCGs with cortical expansion/perforation, tooth resorption/displacement, or recurrence were classified as aggressive (A-group; N = 48), CGCGs without these features as non-aggressive (N-group; N = 39). Data on patient age, gender, and jaw location were collected. Hematoxylin-eosin (H&E)-stained sections were scanned at × 10 magnification, yielding 9982 sections (5236 A-group, 4746 N-group). After excluding artifacts, 4272 sections (2629 A-group, 1643 N-group) were used to train a ResNet-50 model pre-trained on ImageNet. Data augmentation included random rotation, flipping, and zooming. Model was trained for 100 epochs with an 80/20 train/validation split and tested on 100 images (50 A-group, 50 N-group). Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis with area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity was performed; t-test and chi-square test were used for age and frequency (p < 0.05). AUC was 52%, sensitivity 54%, and specificity 50%. Mean age of patients in A-group was lower than in N-groups (32.6 ± 19.98 years and 42.2 ± 21.58 years, respectively; p = 0.038). F:M ratio was 1:1 in both groups. Mandible was twofold more frequently than maxilla in both groups. This pioneering study to differentiate between aggressive and non-aggressive CGCGs based on whole microscopic sections using a deep machine learning model was not successful, probably due to lack of specific segmentations and technical staining issues. Further investigation with advanced preprocessing is needed to enhance model performance and clinical utility.
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.