ArticleiScience2026
Interpretable machine learning for urothelial cells classification and risk scoring in urine cytology.
Article in iScience, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Urine cytology is widely used for detecting urothelial carcinoma (UC), though its performance is constrained by limited sensitivity and substantial interobserver variability. An interpretable machine learning framework was developed to classify urothelial cells and to estimate slide-level risk of high-grade UC. 10,230 expert-annotated urothelial cells were used to extract 20 quantitative feature representing cytomorphologic criteria defined by the Paris System. Ordinal logistic regression and random forest models were trained and validated, achieving over 90% accuracy for classifying cells into normal, atypical, or suspicious categories. Interpretable morphological features were identified as major contributors to prediction. Slide-level risk scores were derived from aggregated cell probabilities in a validation set of 247 cases. These scores effectively stratified negative, atypical, low-grade, and high-grade UC cases (
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.