ArticleScientific reports2025
Exploring the feasibility of AI-based analysis of histopathological variability in salivary gland tumours.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The SALV-Dataset Registry: An Expertly Curated Digital Clinicopathological Dataset for Salivary Gland Tumor Research and AI-Assisted Diagnostic Tools.Head and neck pathology · 2026Article
- Educational Frameworks for Diagnostic Decision-Making in AI-Enhanced Head and Neck Pathology.Head and neck pathology · 2026Review
- Multimodal ultrasonographic features of high-grade mucoepidermoid carcinoma of the parotid gland: a case report.Gland surgery · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Deep Learning Convolutional Neural Networks for Classification of Carcinoma Ex Pleomorphic Adenoma and Pleomorphic Adenoma in Whole-Slide Images.Head and neck pathology · 2025Article
- Review
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
This study uses artificial intelligence (AI) for differentiation between salivary gland tumours (SGT) using digitised Haematoxylin and Eosin stained whole-slide images (WSI). Machine learning (ML) classifiers were developed and tested using 320 scanned WSI. These included a benign versus malignant classifier (BvM) for automated identification of benign and malignant tumours, a malignant sub-typing (MST) classifier for subtyping four most common malignant SGT and a third classifier for malignant tumour grading. ML results were also compared with deep learning models. All ML classifiers showed an excellent accuracy. An F1 score of 0.95 was seen for benign vs. malignant and malignant subtyping tasks and 0.87 for automated grading. In comparison, the best performing DL models showed F1 scores of 0.80, 0.60 and 0.70 for the same tasks respectively. External validation on an independent cohort demonstrated good accuracy, with an F1 score of 0.87 for both the benign vs. malignant and grading classifiers. A notable association between cellularity, nuclear haematoxylin, cytoplasmic eosin, and nucleus/cell ratio (p < 0.01) were seen between tumours. Our novel findings show that AI can be used for automated differentiation between SGT. Analysis of larger multicentre cohorts is required to establish the significance and clinical usefulness of these findings.
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.