ArticleHead and neck pathology2025
Evaluation of Deep Learning Convolutional Neural Networks for Classification of Carcinoma Ex Pleomorphic Adenoma and Pleomorphic Adenoma in Whole-Slide Images.
Article in Head and neck pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe study aimed to compare multiple convolutional neural networks architectures for their classification performance in distinguishing salivary gland tumors, pleomorphic adenoma and carcinoma ex pleomorphic adenoma, using whole-slide images.
methodsA cross-sectional study using 107 hematoxylin and eosin stained whole-slide images from 83 patients diagnosed with pleomorphic adenoma (n = 41) and carcinoma ex pleomorphic adenoma (n = 42) was conducted. Eight convolutional neural networks models (ResNet50, InceptionV3, VGG16, Xception, MobileNet, DenseNet121, EfficientNetB0, and EfficientNetV2B0) were applied, trained, and evaluated. A total of 955,583 patches (224 × 224 pixels) were generated and not-randomly divided into training (80%), validation (10%), and testing (10%) subsets. Performance and generalization were assessed through analysis of training and validation accuracy and loss curves. Testing phase evaluation included multiple metrics-such as precision, sensitivity, specificity, and others.
resultsResNet50 achieved the highest performance in 7 out of 9 metrics. DenseNet121 also delivered strong results, surpassing ResNet50 in specificity (94% vs. 93%) while matching its balanced accuracy (93%), precision (98%), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.97). Both exhibited comparable performance in loss (0.63 vs. 0.65), precision (98% vs. 98%), sensitivity (94% vs. 92%), and F1 score (0.96 vs. 0.95), demonstrating near-equivalent diagnostic capability.
conclusionThis study demonstrates strong potential of convolutional neural networks for classifying salivary gland tumors, with ResNet50 and DenseNet121 showing notable performance. Future work should focus on expanding datasets, improving generalization, exploring ensemble methods, and incorporating interpretability to enhance clinical relevance with clinical and radiographic data.
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.