ArticleJournal of bone oncology2024
Auxiliary diagnosis of primary bone tumors based on Machine learning model.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Performance comparison and future perspectives of deep learning and classical machine learning in bone tumor applications: a systematic review (2019-2025).BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Pooled it
- Global research trends in bone tumors: a bibliometric analysis of medical imaging.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Recognition of molecular clusters and a novel prognostic signature based on natural killer cell-related genes in skin cutaneous melanoma.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Primary Malignant Bone Tumor Imaging: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- 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 · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.