ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2026
An interpretable multi-instance learning method for accurate differentiation of malignant and benign laryngeal lesions in laryngoscopy.
Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaryngeal cancer is a significant global health issue with high mortality, and early diagnosis is critical for survival. Developing accurate diagnostic models for laryngoscopy can reduce potential repeated biopsies and lessen the patient burden, representing an urgent clinical need. However, existing artificial intelligence models often function as black boxes and are trained on single, pre-selected images, which does not reflect the clinical workflow where multiple images are assessed.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study on 611 patients who underwent white light endoscopy (WLE) examinations. We developed an interpretable multi-instance learning network (IMIL-Net), which uses a patient-level of images. The model uses a Swin Transformer encoder and a gated attention pooling mechanism to produce a patient-level diagnosis and instance-level interpretability scores. We evaluated the model using a 5-fold cross-validation and compared it against four baseline models. We quantitatively validated the model's interpretability by comparing its attention scores against physician-annotated regions of interest (ROI) from 30 cases using the Mann-Whitney U test.
resultsIMIL-Net achieved the highest diagnostic performance, with a mean area under the curve (AUC) of 0.975 (95% CI 0.959-0.991), accuracy of 0.915 (95% CI 0.883-0.947), sensitivity of 0.876 (95% CI 0.803-0.949), and specificity of 0.945 (95% CI 0.910-0.980). This was superior to all baseline models, including non-MIL architectures (AUC 0.888-0.897) and a logistic regression model using only clinical data (AUC 0.898). The model's interpretability was quantitatively confirmed: physician-annotated ROI images (n=63) received a significantly higher median attention score (20.94%) compared to non-ROI images (n=78, 15.32%, [Formula: see text]).
conclusionThe proposed IMIL-Net provides a high-accuracy, interpretable, and clinically-aligned diagnostic solution. By analyzing complete patient examinations and providing a statistically validated decision-making process, this model represents a trustworthy tool for integration into the clinical otolaryngology workflow.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42625011What 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.