ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Deep learning-assisted versus manual reading in routine cervical cytopathology: a multicentre randomised crossover trial.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 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 oncology: linking biological discovery to clinical utility.Molecular cancer · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Deep learning (DL) systems could improve diagnostic accuracy and efficiency in detecting cervical atypia, but their effectiveness remains insufficiently explored. This multicentre, randomised crossover trial evaluated the clinical utility of a DL system in cervical cytopathology. A total of 1,920 women aged 18 years or older undergoing liquid-based cytology for cervical cancer screening were included, and their slides were digitized and randomly assigned (1:1) to two reading sequences. Four non-expert cytopathologists with 1-3 years of experience assessed slides using DL assistance for one group and manual microscopy for the other, and then switched roles after a four-week washout period. Each slide was evaluated twice in a randomly shuffled order. DL significantly improved sensitivity (85.7% vs 71.3%, p < 0.001), with a difference of 14.3% (95% CI: 7.6% to 21.1%), exceeding the 5% superiority margin. Specificity was comparable (86.5% vs 85.1%, p = 0.238), and non-inferiority was supported, as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference (1.4%; 95% CI: -1.0% to 3.8%) was above the pre-specified margin of -5%. Reading time was markedly reduced with DL (175 seconds vs 31 seconds, p < 0.001). DL assistance could enhance both sensitivity and efficiency while rigorously preserving specificity in cervical cytology interpretation. Trial registration: ChiCTR2300078722.
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.