ReviewJournal of imaging2025
Advancing Medical Decision-Making with AI: A Comprehensive Exploration of the Evolution from Convolutional Neural Networks to Capsule Networks.
Review in Journal of imaging, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a literature review regarding two deep learning architectures, namely Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and Capsule Networks (CapsNets), applied to medical images, in order to analyze them to help in medical decision support. CNNs demonstrate their capacity in the medical diagnostic field; however, their reliability decreases when there is slight spatial variability, which can affect diagnosis, especially since the anatomical structure of the human body can differ from one patient to another. In contrast, CapsNets encode not only feature activation but also spatial relationships, hence improving the reliability and stability of model generalization. This paper proposes a structured comparison by reviewing studies published from 2018 to 2025 across major databases, including IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and MDPI. The applications in the reviewed papers are based on the benchmark datasets BraTS, INbreast, ISIC, and COVIDx. This paper review compares the core architectural principles, performance, and interpretability of both architectures. To conclude the paper, we underline the complementary roles of these two architectures in medical decision-making and propose future directions toward hybrid, explainable, and computationally efficient deep learning systems for real clinical environments, thereby increasing survival rates by helping prevent diseases at an early stage.
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.