ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Generalizability of Deep Learning Architectures for Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma Classification in Histopathology: A Comparative CNN-Vision Transformer Study with External Validation and Label-Quality Analysis.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is the most prevalent oral malignancy, with delayed diagnosis contributing to poor survival. Deep learning has shown promise for histopathological detection of OSCC, but reported performance is frequently based on single-source datasets, with limited external validation and variable annotation quality. Our study was to compare representative CNN and transformer architectures for histopathological OSCC classification and assess their generalizability under external domain shift. A total of 10,817 H&E-stained image patches from 114 patients were classified as OSCC or normal/control. Images were independently reviewed by two oral pathologists, with discordant cases adjudicated by a senior pathologist (Cohen's κ = 0.975). Eight ImageNet-pre-trained architectures (ResNet18, ResNet50, ResNet101, DenseNet121, EfficientNet-B0, ConvNeXt-Tiny, ViT-B/16, and Swin-T) were fine-tuned using three random seeds. Models were trained, validated, and tested on the internally curated dataset {MIDAS} and subsequently evaluated on two independent external datasets used exclusively for external validation. Diagnostic performance, computational efficiency, statistical significance, and model interpretability were assessed. To investigate the observed reduction in external performance, cancer-labelled images from the external datasets underwent post hoc expert pathological review for potential label discordance. A total of 10,817 H&E-stained image patches from 114 patients were classified as OSCC or normal/control. Images were independently reviewed by two oral pathologists, with discordant cases adjudicated by a senior pathologist (Cohen's κ = 0.975). Eight ImageNet-pre-trained architectures (ResNet18, ResNet50, ResNet101, DenseNet121, EfficientNet-B0, ConvNeXt-Tiny, ViT-B/16, and Swin-T) were fine-tuned using three random seeds. Models were evaluated on a patient-level internal test set and two independent external datasets. Diagnostic performance, computational efficiency, statistical differences, and interpretability were assessed. Cancer-labelled images from External Dataset 2 were post hoc reassessed for label discordance. ConvNeXt-Tiny demonstrated the strongest overall performance. Substantial external degradation across models highlights the effects of domain shift and label quality, emphasizing expert annotation, independent validation, reproducible benchmarking, and multi-institutional datasets for clinical translation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42870166What 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.