ArticleJournal of imaging2026
A Multiphase CT-Based Integrated Deep Learning Framework for Rectal Cancer Detection, Segmentation, and Staging: Performance Comparison with Radiologist Assessment.
Article in Journal of imaging, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate staging of rectal cancer is crucial for treatment planning; however, computed tomography (CT) interpretation remains challenging and highly dependent on radiologist expertise. This study aimed to develop and evaluate an AI-assisted system for rectal cancer detection and staging using CT images. The proposed framework integrates three components-a convolutional neural network (RCD-CNN) for lesion detection, a U-Net model for rectal contour delineation and tumor localization, and a 3D convolutional network (RCS-3DCNN) for staging prediction. CT scans from 223 rectal cancer patients at Kaohsiung Medical University Chung-Ho Memorial Hospital were retrospectively analyzed, including both non-contrast and contrast-enhanced studies. RCD-CNN achieved an accuracy of 0.976, recall of 0.975, and precision of 0.976. U-Net yielded Dice scores of 0.897 (rectal contours) and 0.856 (tumor localization). Radiologist-based clinical staging had 82.6% concordance with pathology, while AI-based staging achieved 80.4%. McNemar's test showed no significant difference between the AI and radiologist staging results (
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.