2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.105255
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multi-label recognition of cancer-related lesions with clinical priors on white-light endoscopy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…3 B). The deep learning network [ 17 , 18 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 54 ] was used to predict ovarian cancer clustering subtypes based on transcription factor activity profile. The best hyper-parameters of the deep neural network were optimized by the grid search algorithm, and this model was further evaluated via the ten-fold cross-validation [ 54 , 55 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…3 B). The deep learning network [ 17 , 18 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 54 ] was used to predict ovarian cancer clustering subtypes based on transcription factor activity profile. The best hyper-parameters of the deep neural network were optimized by the grid search algorithm, and this model was further evaluated via the ten-fold cross-validation [ 54 , 55 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on changes in the target gene expression levels of transcription factors, algorithms and analysis tools have been developed for evaluating transcription factor activity [ [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] ]. However, the activity levels of transcription factors in ovarian cancer are not well-understood, and neither are their prognostic nor therapeutic effects on ovarian cancer [ 7 , 8 , 32 , 33 ]. In this study, we constructed transcription factor activity profiles of ovarian cancer using the VIPER algorithm.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two studies ( 43 , 47 ) were from the same team, one of which ( 47 ) constructed and tested a CAG diagnostic model, and the other ( 43 ) performed a further test; hence, we selected the more extensive test set of data ( 43 ) included in this meta-analysis. Two other studies ( 41 , 48 ) were also from the same team; one study ( 41 ) used AI to identify AG and IM, and another study ( 48 ) added the identification of GC to the former, and we chose the first ( 41 ) to be included in this meta-analysis. Three studies were excluded because only IM was identified ( 49 51 ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Deep learning models have high accuracy but poor interpretability [ 19 ]. For interpretation of the results, a Class Activation Map was applied for visualization.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%