ReviewJournal of medical radiation sciences2026
Deep Learning and Machine Learning Algorithms for Cervical Cancer Segmentation on MRI: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCervical cancer management relies heavily on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for staging and treatment planning; however, manual segmentation is time-consuming and prone to variability. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the performance and clinical potential of machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) algorithms for automated cervical cancer segmentation on MRI.
methodsA systematic review guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (PROSPERO: CRD420251247441) was conducted by searching PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar until December 2025. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). MRI-based segmentation studies were primarily included, while computed tomography (CT)- and positron emission tomography (PET)-based multimodal studies were analysed as complementary evidence. Due to substantial heterogeneity, findings were synthesized narratively, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework.
resultsThirty studies were included, mainly evaluating segmentation of tumours, high-risk clinical target volumes, and organs at risk. DL models, particularly U-Net variants, convolutional neural networks, and transformer-based architectures, demonstrated promising performance, with reported Dice similarity coefficients ranging from 0.60 to 0.93. However, performance varied according to target structure, tumour characteristics, and imaging protocols. Overall risk of bias showed "some concerns," mainly due to patient selection, reference standards, and limited external validation. GRADE assessment indicated low certainty of evidence due to heterogeneity, methodological limitations, and imprecision.
conclusionML and DL algorithms show promising potential for automated cervical cancer segmentation on MRI, with potential benefits for efficiency and reproducibility. However, further multicenter studies with standardized protocols and external validation are required before routine clinical implementation.
trial registrationPRISMA guidelines and was prospectively registered in PROSPERO: CRD420251247441.
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.