ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Deep Learning Algorithm to Determine the Presence of Rectal Cancer from Transrectal Ultrasound Images.
Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Diagnostic Performance of a Deep Learning-Based Tool for the Detection and Staging of Rectal Cancers on Endoscopic Ultrasound: Prospective Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTransrectal ultrasound (TRUS) is a crucial diagnostic tool for accurately detecting rectal cancer; however, its accuracy varies with the examiner's experience. Deep learning, particularly convolutional neural networks (CNNs), exhibited promise in improving diagnostic accuracy in medical imaging. This study developed and assessed a CNN model for identifying rectal cancer using TRUS images.
methodsWe retrospectively gathered 681 TRUS images that were obtained between August 2008 and September 2022. The images were classified as rectal cancer and normal rectum. Then, a CNN model was trained using the EfficientNetV2-S architecture to differentiate between rectal cancer and normal rectum images.
resultsOf the 681 TRUS images, 533 and 148 were obtained from rectal cancer and normal rectum cases, respectively. The CNN model achieved training and validation accuracies of 96.7% and 90.5% and areas under the curve of 0.996 and 0.945, respectively. The precision, recall, and F1 scores were 0.935, 0.944, and 0.940 for rectal cancer and 0.793, 0.767, and 0.780 for the normal rectum, respectively.
conclusionsOur CNN model exhibited good performance in distinguishing rectal cancer from the normal rectum in TRUS images. The model is a valuable decision-support tool to help clinicians. Future studies are warranted to improve the model's generalizability and enable stage classification integration.
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.