Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39624676›Full record

ArticleJournal of bone oncology2024

Auxiliary diagnosis of primary bone tumors based on Machine learning model.

Sandong Deng, Yugang Huang, Cong Li, Jun Qian, Xiangdong Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bone oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Identification of a gene score related to antigen processing and presentation machinery for predicting prognosis in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and its potential implications for immunotherapy.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sandong DengDepartment of Orthopedics, Affiliated Hengyang Hospital, Hunan Normal University (Hengyang Central Hospital), Hengyang, Hunan 421001, China.
Yugang HuangDepartment of Radiology, Qianhai Life Insurance Guangzhou General Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong 511300, China.
Cong LiSchool of Computer Science, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410083, China.
Jun QianDepartment of Orthopedics, Affiliated Hengyang Hospital, Hunan Normal University (Hengyang Central Hospital), Hengyang, Hunan 421001, China.
Xiangdong WangHengyang Maternal and Child Health Hospital, Hengyang, Hunan 421001, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Research on auxiliary diagnosis of primary bone tumors can enhance diagnostic accuracy, facilitate early detection, and enable personalized treatment, thereby reducing misdiagnosis and missed cases, ultimately leading to improved patient prognosis and survival rates. In this study, we established a whole slide imaging (WSI) database comprising histopathological samples from all categories of bone tumors and integrated multiple neural network architectures for machine learning models. We then evaluated the accuracy of these models in diagnosing primary bone tumors. Methods: In this paper, the machine learning model based on the deep convolutional neural network (DC-NN) method was combined with imaging omics analysis to analyze and discuss its clinical value in diagnosing primary bone tumors. In addition, this paper proposed a screening method for differentially expressed genes. Based on the paired T-test method, the process first estimated the tumor purity in the experimental data of each sample case, then assessed the actual gene expression value of the experimental data of each sample case, and finally calculated the optimized paired T-test statistics, and screened differentially expressed genes according to the threshold value. Results: The selected model demonstrated excellent diagnostic accuracy in distinguishing between normal and tumor images, with overall accuracy of (99.8 ± 0.4) % for five rounds of testing using the DCNN model and positive and negative predictive values of (100.0 ± 0.0) % and (99.6 ± 0.8) %, respectively. The mean area under each dataset's curve (AUC) was (0.998 ± 0.004). Further, ten rounds of testing using the DCNN model showed an overall accuracy of (71.2 ± 1.6) % and a substantial positive predictive value of (91.9 ± 8.5) % in distinguishing benign from malignant bone tumors, with an average AUC of (0.62 ± 0.06) across datasets. Conclusion: The deep learning model accurately classifies bone tumor histopathology based on the degree of infiltration, achieving diagnostic performance comparable to that of senior pathologists. These findings affirm the feasibility and effectiveness of histopathological diagnosis in bone tumors, providing a theoretical foundation for the application and advancement of machine learning-assisted histopathological diagnosis in this field.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceAuxiliary diagnosisBone tumorsLesion detectionMachine learning

Identifiers

PMID39624676
PMCPMC11609325

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.