ArticleJournal of cytology
Ensemble Learning to Categorize the Bethesda System of Reporting of Cervical Cytology.
Article in Journal of cytology. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims and Objectives: To evaluate the performance of a soft-voting ensemble deep learning (DL) model incorporating five transfer learning (TL) architectures for categorizing cervical smears according to the Bethesda system. Materials and Methods: A total of 259 cervical cytology cases processed by SurePath liquid-based cytology were included, yielding 1016 representative microphotographs. Images were divided into training (70%), validation (15%), and test (15%) sets. An ensemble model comprising VGG16, ResNet50, InceptionV3, DenseNet121, and MobileNetV2 was trained using TL with soft-voting integration. Diagnostic performance was assessed using standard metrics, including 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: In the test set, the model correctly classified 27/31 negative for intraepithelial lesions and malignancy (NILM) images and 56/58 carcinoma images. For NILM, the sensitivity was 0.871 (95% CI: 0.72-0.95), specificity 0.977 (95% CI: 0.94-0.99), accuracy 0.956 (95% CI: 0.92-0.98), and area under the curve of receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96-1.00). For carcinoma, the sensitivity was 0.966 (95% CI: 0.88-1.00), specificity 0.960 (95% CI: 0.87-0.99), accuracy 0.962 (95% CI: 0.93-0.99), and AUROC 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1.00). Intermediate categories demonstrated variable performance, with lower sensitivity for low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (0.20), though the specificity remained high (1.00). Overall, AUROC values were high across all categories (0.93-0.99). Among all the models, the ensemble learning (EL) model had the best performance. Conclusions: The proposed EL approach demonstrates high diagnostic accuracy and excellent discrimination for clinically critical categories such as high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) and carcinoma. This model highlights the potential of DL-based ensemble frameworks in improving the reliability of cervical cytology interpretation. Larger datasets and whole-slide image analysis may further refine the performance for intermediate-grade lesions.
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.