ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
A dual-branch CNN-LSTM framework for exploratory classification of colorectal cancer histopathology and hepatocellular carcinoma clinical records.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
Colorectal cancer (CRC) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remain major diagnostic challenges because classification often depends on modality-specific evidence that is stored in separate public datasets. This study evaluates a dual-branch CNN-LSTM framework using two independent and unpaired data sources: colorectal histopathological image patches and structured HCC clinical-biochemical records. The study is therefore positioned as an exploratory investigation of representation learning across heterogeneous medical datasets. The CNN branch extracts spatial and glandular texture features from curated CRC image patches, whereas the LSTM branch treats fixed-order clinical attributes as a structured feature sequence to learn inter-feature dependencies in the HCC records. Under internal public-dataset testing with bootstrap uncertainty estimation, the full CNN + LSTM + MLP framework achieved an accuracy of 0.978 (95% CI, 0.971-0.984), Macro-F1 of 0.977 (95% CI, 0.971-0.984), and Macro OVR AUC of 0.997 (95% CI, 0.996-0.998). Ablation and baseline comparisons showed lower performance for CNN only (accuracy 0.938), LSTM only (0.875), clinical encoder only (0.890), CNN + LSTM (0.966), CNN + clinical MLP (0.958), late fusion (0.952), EfficientNet-B0-style fusion (0.970), ViT-tiny-style fusion (0.960), XGBoost (0.910), random forest (0.900), and logistic regression (0.875). The full model also exceeded the EfficientNet-B0-style baseline in Macro AUC by 0.003 (95% CI, 0.002-0.004; paired bootstrap P = 0.007; McNemar exact P = 0.011). Grad-CAM and SHAP analyses are used to interpret branch-specific decisions, while the findings remain limited to internal public-dataset validation.
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.