ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024
Automated analysis of digital medical images in cervical cancer screening: A systematic review.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. 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
Abstract
Background: Cervical cancer screening programs are poorly implemented in LMICs due to a shortage of specialists and expensive diagnostic infrastructure. To address the barriers of implementation researchers have been developing low-cost portable devices and automating image analysis for decision support.However, as the knowledge base is growing rapidly, progress on the implementation status of novel imaging devices and algorithms in cervical cancer screening has become unclear. The aim of this project was to provide a systematic review summarizing the full range of automated technology systems used in cervical cancer screening. Method: A search on academic databases was conducted and the search results were screened by two independent reviewers. Study selection was based on eligibility in meeting the terms of inclusion and exclusion criteria which were outlined using a Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome framework. Results: 17 studies reported algorithms developed with source images from mobile device, viz. Pocket Colposcope, MobileODT EVA Colpo, Smartphone Camera, Smartphone-based Endoscope System, Smartscope, mHRME, and PiHRME. While 56 studies reported algorithms with source images from conventional/commercial acquisition devices. Most interventions were in the feasibility stage of development, undergoing initial clinical validations. Conclusion: Researchers have proven superior prediction performance of computer aided diagnostics (CAD) in colposcopy (>80% accuracies) versus manual analysis (<70.0% accuracies). Furthermore, this review summarized evidence of the algorithms which are being created utilizing portable devices, to circumvent constraints prohibiting wider implementation in LMICs (such as expensive diagnostic infrastructure). However clinical validation of novel devices with CAD is not yet implemented adequately in LMICs.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.