ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Determination of Fungiform Papilla Number Using Deep Learning Methods.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to develop a deep learning-based method for the automatic detection and counting of fungiform papillae (FP) on the dorsal surface of the human tongue. FP density and morphology may serve as biomarkers for taste function and systemic disease diagnosis. Manual counting is time-consuming and subjective; therefore, an objective and reproducible artificial intelligence (AI) method was designed to provide a reliable quantitative assessment. A deeplearning object detection model was constructed using the Ultralytics YOLOv11 architecture. A dataset of 177 high-resolution toluidine blue-stained tongue images was manually annotated and dividedin to training, validation, and test sets. Three-foldnestedcross-validation was employed for hyperparameter optimization. Transfer learning was applied by freezing 22 backbone layers, and the detection heads were trained using tuned learning rates and decay factors. Early stopping was used to prevent overfitting. Model performance was evaluated on the independent test set. The model achieved 0.678 precision, 0.740 recall, and 0.707 F1 score, reflecting balanced detection performance. Compared with existing studies, our model demonstrated improved generalization and robustness. The mean absolute error (37.52; 19.48% of the true mean) and root mean square error (43.83) indicated reliable counting accuracy given the natural variability of FP counts (192.56 ± 63.14). The proposed YOLOv11-based model provides a fast, accurate, and reproducible alternative to manual FP counting. This approach may support large-scale clinical and research applications where FP analysis serves as a potential biomarker of health status.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42098535What 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.