Automated analysis of digital medical images in cervical cancer screening: A systematic review
Ledwaba, L. N.; Saidu, R.; Malila, B.; Kuhn, L.; Mutsvangwa, T.
Show abstract
BackgroundCervical cancer screening programs are poorly implemented in LMICs due to a shortage of specialists and expensive diagnostic infrastructure. To address the barriers of implementation researchers have been developing low-cost portable devices and automating image analysis for decision support. However, as the knowledge base is growing rapidly, progress on the implementation status of novel imaging devices and algorithms in cervical cancer screening has become unclear. The aim of this project was to provide a systematic review summarizing the full range of automated technology systems used in cervical cancer screening. MethodA search on academic databases was conducted and the search results were screened by two independent reviewers. Study selection was based on eligibility in meeting the terms of inclusion and exclusion criteria which were outlined using a Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome framework. Results17 studies reported algorithms developed with source images from mobile device, viz. Pocket Colposcope, MobileODT EVA Colpo, Smartphone Camera, Smartphone-based Endoscope System, Smartscope, mHRME, and PiHRME. While 56 studies reported algorithms with source images from conventional/commercial acquisition devices. Most interventions were in the feasibility stage of development, undergoing initial clinical validations. ConclusionResearchers have proven superior prediction performance of computer aided diagnostics (CAD) in colposcopy (>80% accuracies) versus manual analysis (<70.0% accuracies). Furthermore, this review summarized evidence of the algorithms which are being created utilizing portable devices, to circumvent constraints prohibiting wider implementation in LMICs (such as expensive diagnostic infrastructure). However clinical validation of novel devices with CAD is not yet implemented adequately in LMICs.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Reasons for non-attendance to cervical cancer screening and acceptability of HPV self-sampling among Bruneian women: A cross-sectional study 94%
- Early user experience and lessons learned using ultra-portable digital X-ray with computer-aided detection (DXR-CAD) products: A qualitative study from the perspective of healthcare providers 93%
- A Scoping Review Protocol on Integration of mobile-linked POC diagnostics in community-based healthcare: User Experience 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Machine Learning Ensemble Based on Radiomics to Predict BI-RADS Category and Reduce the Biopsy Rate of Ultrasound-Detected Suspicious Breast Masses 90%
- Demarcation line determination for diagnosis of gastric cancer disease range using unsupervised machine learning in magnifying narrow-band imaging 90%
- Availability and Use of Mobile Health Technology for Disease Diagnosis and Treatment Support by Health Workers in the Ashanti Region of Ghana: A Cross-sectional Survey 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Theory of radiologist interaction with instant messaging decision support tools: a sequential-explanatory study 92%
- Automated Image Transcription for Perinatal Blood Pressure Monitoring Using Mobile Health Technology 92%
- Detecting papilloedema as a marker of raised intracranial pressure using artificial intelligence: a systematic review 91%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Acceptability of extending HPV-based cervical screening intervals from 3 to 5 years: An interview study with women in England 92%
- Challenges and facilitators in pathways to cancer diagnosis in Southern Africa: A qualitative study 91%
- Understanding preferences for self-sampling in a national cervical screening programme: a protocol for a discrete choice experiment 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.