ArticleScientific reports2026
Research on liver cancer pathology image recognition based on deep learning image processing.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The accurate diagnosis of Liver cancer through pathological image analysis remains challenging due to the complexity and heterogeneity of histopathological features. This study proposes MSAF-Net, a novel multi-space attention fusion network that systematically integrates five complementary feature spaces (R, B, Y, entropy, and LBP) with an SE-block enhanced fusion mechanism and EfficientNet-Lite based feature extraction. The proposed framework establishes a new state-of-the-art in pathological image analysis by effectively combining engineered feature spaces with deep learning, offering both high diagnostic reliability and computational efficiency for clinical applications. Experimental results demonstrate superior performance with 94.7% accuracy, 93.2% sensitivity, and 95.8% specificity, representing significant improvements of 6.3%, 7.1%, and 5.6% respectively over conventional single-space methods.
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.