ArticleNPJ precision oncology2026
Development and validation of an artificial intelligence-based model for diagnosing benign, borderline, and malignant adnexal masses.
Article in NPJ precision oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in ovarian cancer prevention and control: a brief review of detection, treatment, and equity (2021-2026).Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Classification of benign, borderline, and malignant adnexal masses is critical to effective clinical management, but remains a challenge. We developed Clinical-Ovarian Multi-Task Attention (Clinical-OMTA), an artificial intelligence model based on a dual-backbone architecture (benign vs. non-benign, and borderline vs. malignant) that integrates ultrasound, age, and Carbohydrate Antigen 125 (CA125) for multi-class classification. The model's performance, generalisability, and clinical utility were evaluated. Retrospective data were collected from 23 hospitals (1882 patients for training, validation, and internal testing from 21 hospitals; 340 and 159 patients for external testing from two hospitals). In the external image dataset, Clinical-OMTA demonstrated comparable diagnostic performance to ADNEX (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]: 0.950 vs. 0.953, 0.870 vs. 0.853, 0.930 vs. 0.938) and subjective assessment by an expert examiner (accuracy: 85.6% vs. 87.4%). While Clinical-OMTA supported multimodal integration, it did not outperform Ovarian Multi-Task Attention (OMTA) that trained only with images, indicating that including age and CA125 did not improve performance. Clinical-OMTA performed similarly across acquisition modes, equipment types, scanning methods, and different centres (accuracy: 79.9%-87.7%). With Clinical-OMTA as a decision support tool, radiologists showed significantly improved inter-reader agreement (kappa: 0.17-0.78 vs. 0.86-0.98) and diagnostic accuracy (72.3% vs. 88.0%). Clinical-OMTA appears generalisable and could be especially useful in low-resource or remote settings where expert ultrasound examiners are scarce.
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.