ArticleScientific reports2026
Integrative framework for cancer detection via integro-differential equations using deep learning techniques.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer diagnosis remains challenging in clinical practice, motivating the development of computational tools for accurate identification of cancerous regions in medical images. Recent advances in deep learning have shown potential to support these tasks. This study proposes a framework that converts 2D medical images (e.g., mammograms) into 1D signals for efficient feature extraction, followed by classification using a 1D convolutional neural network. Integro-differential equations are incorporated to model tumor growth dynamics and spatial-temporal intensity variations, with the goal of improving interpretability. The approach was evaluated on publicly available mammography datasets (INbreast and MIAS). In preliminary experiments, it achieved 96.4% accuracy in binary classification, comparable to or slightly better than selected conventional deep learning baselines on these benchmarks. The paper discusses advantages in feature extraction and computational aspects, along with limitations related to data dependency, information loss during signal conversion, and simplifications in the mathematical models.
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.