A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Deep learning-assisted system improves practical effect in cervical cytopathology diagnosis: A comparative study of reading modes. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Deep learning (DL) has significantly improved the diagnostic accuracy and efficiency of cytopathologists. However, current DL-assisted reading modes have yet to be fully evaluated, and there is limited evidence regarding cytopathologists' preferences and experiences. This study employs a randomized, controlled, four-way crossover design to assess the effectiveness of four different reading modes in cervical cytopathology readings. This study included retrospectively collected 1620 cervical slides between 2021 and 2022. These slides were read by 108 certified cytopathologists with varying expertise using the four reading modes: unassisted, concurrent, second, and triage mode. A questionnaire survey was conducted to gather the cytopathologists' adoption of each mode, including mode score and their confidence and preferences. Compared to unassisted, all DL-assisted modes improved the cytopathologists' diagnostic performance. The unassisted mode had a sensitivity of 66.2% and specificity of 72.5%. The second, concurrent, and triage modes all improved on these metrics: sensitivity increased by 20.2%, 17.3%, and 16.7%, respectively, while specificity increased by 13.2%, 10.8%, and 22.3%, respectively. The median reading time per slide was prolonged in second mode from 200s to 235s, but substantially reduced to 130s in triage mode, and 53s in concurrent mode (P<.0001 for all). Moreover, the questionnaire survey showed over 90% of cytopathologists agreed with either DL-assisted mode was useful in improving diagnostic confidence, and they preferred the concurrent mode, while the triage mode achieved the highest performance in the mode score. The second mode stands out for its heightened sensitivity, the triage mode boasts superior specificity, and the concurrent mode leads in efficiency when assisting cytopathologists. These findings provide useful information for choosing appropriate DL-assisted modes in cytopathological practice.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.modpat.2025.100882DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

reading modes
16
cervical cytopathology
8
triage mode
8
modes improved
8
mode
7
modes
6
reading
5
deep learning-assisted
4
learning-assisted system
4
system improves
4

Similar Publications