ArticleBMC cancer2026
Image analysis for cervical cancer classification using deep learning techniques.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related molarity among women in sub-Sahara Africa, where limited pathology capacity constrains timely diagnosis. Rwanda reports one of the highest cervical cancers incidence rates in the region, and there is a pressing need for scalable decision-support tools to augment histopathology services. This study evaluated deep learning models for automated binary classification of cervical histopathology images from a tertiary hospital in Kigali, Rwanda.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective, single-center study using 885 hematoxylin-and-eosin-stained cervical biopsy image patches acquired at the University Teaching Hospital of Kigali (CHUK) between 2018 and 2024. Regions of interest were annotated by board-certified pathologists and organized into normal versus abnormal (precancerous and malignant) categories. Three ImageNet-pretrained convolutional neural networks (ResNet50, EfficientNetB0, DenseNet121) were fine-tuned using patient-level, stratified splits (70% training, 20% validation, 10% test), class-weighted loss, and domain consistent data augmentation. Performance was assessed on the held-out test set using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F1-score, receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (ROC-AUC), Brier score, and calibration curves with 95% confidence intervals.
resultsEfficientNetB0 achieved the best overall performance, with test accuracy 0.99 (95% CI 0.97-1.00), sensitivity 0.98, specificity 1.00, F1-score 0.99, ROC-AUC 0.99, and the lowest Brier score (0.02). ResNet50 reached an accuracy of 0.91 (ROC-AUC 0.96), while DenseNet121 obtained an accuracy of 0.86 (ROC-AUC 0.96), with comparatively poorer calibration. EfficientNetB0 misclassified only one abnormal image as normal and produced no false positives on the test set.
conclusionsCompact deep learning architectures, particularly EfficientNetB0, can deliver near-perfect discrimination between normal and abnormal cervical histopathology in a resource constrained Rwandan setting. These results support the feasibility of AI-assisted pathology as a triage tool but require external, multi-center and prospective validation before clinical deployment.
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.