ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
AI performance in oral cytology for differentiating poorly defined tumor cells from reactive atypia.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 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.
- Editorial: Special issue on application of artificial intelligence in oral and craniofacial care.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite its investigative potential, few studies have reported the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in oral cytology. Oral mucosal cells display significant cellular atypia due to inflammatory stimulation or denaturation, whereas well-differentiated oral squamous cell carcinomas do not always show remarkable cellular atypia. The presence of noncancerous atypical cells alongside ill-defined tumor cells poses significant challenges to the development of effective AI tools. Thus, we aimed to investigate the effect of these atypical cells on AI performance. Materials and methods: We used 29 cases of non-neoplastic lesions, including gingivitis, stomatitis, and 17 squamous cell carcinomas for supervised learning and validation. The cells were classified into four categories: normal, cancer, orange-suspicious, and green-suspicious. Orange and green suspicious cells indicated tumor cells lacking definitive morphological features. Annotation was performed using VoTT v2.2.0, and YOLOv7 as the object detection model, with model training being performed in six ways. Results: The model that learned orange- and green-suspicious cells as cancer exhibited the highest detection capabilities, but also yielded a high number of false positives. In contrast, the model that excluded information about suspicious cells could rightfully identify some suspicious cells as cancer with fewer false positives. Conclusions: Discriminating ill-defined tumor cells from atypical non-neoplastic cells based solely on morphology is challenging. Classifying suspicious cells as cancer often results in numerous false positives. Conversely, AI trained on normal and cancer can reveal previously unnoticed cancerous features in suspicious cells.
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.