ArticleBMC oral health2025
Texture-based image feature analysis for the classification of oral squamous cell carcinoma using machine learning approach.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence is being developed as a vital tool to improve the accuracy and efficiency of oral cancer diagnosis. Oral squamous cell carcinoma is often detected at advanced stages, leading to poor patient outcomes, and traditional diagnostic methods can be subjective and physically demanding for pathologists. By comparing different Artificial intelligence models, including machine learning and deep learning, this study aims to create a more standardized and rapid diagnostic aid that can support pathologists and increase patient survival rates.
methodsA total of 115 cases (49 OSCC, 66 normal) were captured at 100x and 400x magnifications. Twelve Gray Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM) features were extracted. Machine learning models, including Fine Tree, Medium Tree, Linear Discriminant, Linear Support Vector Machine, K-Nearest Neighbors, and Neural Network (MLP) model were developed. Model performance was evaluated across four distinct classification tasks, assessing the contribution of histopathological images alone and in fusion with demographic/clinical data. Statistical validation involved 5-fold cross-validation on the training set and independent testing, reporting sensitivity, specificity, precision, F1 score, and overall accuracy.
resultsAnalysis of Gray Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM) features revealed significant textural disparities between normal and OSCC. Specifically, OSCC images showed trends of finer texture (lower autocorrelation), higher local intensity variation, increased complexity (entropy), greater intensity disparities (dissimilarity), and reduced uniformity (lower energy, maximum probability, and homogeneity) compared to normal counterparts. Leveraging these distinct textural signatures, the developed machine learning models exhibited exceptional classification capabilities, frequently achieving 100% sensitivity, specificity, precision, F1 score, and overall accuracy across all tasks during both validation and testing of models. This high performance highlights the reliability of the proposed approach for differentiating OSCC.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated that statistical image features effectively capture distinct textural differences between normal and OSCC tissues. The developed machine learning models showed outstanding classification performance, demonstrating their strong potential for accurate, automated OSCC diagnosis. This near-perfect accuracy could revolutionize diagnostic workflows, minimizing subjective interpretations and enhancing overall efficiency.
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.