Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 48 references

An Explainable Attention Model for Cervical Precancer Risk Classification using Colposcopic Images

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A lightweight attention-based network classifies cervical precancer risk from colposcopy images at 99.33% holdout and 99.81% cross-validated accuracy.

desk verdict The accuracy claim is not credible as stated because the image-level split leaks patient identity into the test set, and the holdout number contradicts its own confusion matrix. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09469 v1 pith:VC42W6WF submitted 2024-11-14 eess.IV cs.AI

Smith K. Khare , Berit Bargum Booth , Victoria Blanes-Vidal , Lone Kjeld Petersen , Esmaeil S. Nadimi This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.AI
keywords cervicalprecancercolposcopydeeplearningCBAMattentionmechanismexplainableAICartoonXrate-distortionexplanation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that a small convolutional network with attention can separate high-risk from low-risk cervical precancer using colposcopy images, and that the decision can be explained to a clinician. The proposed Cervix-AID-Net inserts a Convolutional Block Attention Module after each of five convolutional layers, letting the network emphasize both informative channels and informative image regions. The authors report 99.33% accuracy on a holdout test set and 99.81% accuracy under ten-fold cross-validation on 3,153 images from 178 patients, with fewer parameters and a smaller memory footprint than AlexNet, GoogLeNet, and ECANet. They also compare four explanation methods and argue that CartoonX gives the most useful explanations because it highlights piecewise-smooth structures such as the cervix rather than scattered pixels. The motivation is that an accurate, transparent, lightweight tool could support cervical cancer screening and triage where colposcopy expertise is scarce.

What carries the argument

The engine of the method is the Convolutional Block Attention Module (CBAM), a two-stage attention block that refines a feature map by multiplying it first by a channel-attention map and then by a spatial-attention map, where both maps are built from average-pooled and max-pooled feature descriptors. Placed after every convolutional layer, CBAM is what the paper credits for extracting representative features that separate the two risk classes. The explanatory counterpart is CartoonX, a rate-distortion explanation method that optimizes a sparse mask in the discrete wavelet transform domain, so the explanation is a piecewise-smooth cartoon of the image rather than a sparse pixel mask. The paper also uses Grad-CAM, LIME, and pixel RDE as comparison explanations, and it evaluates the distortion needed for each explanation to flip the model's decision from one class to another.

What would settle it

Run the same model with a patient-exclusive split, keeping all images from each patient entirely in training or entirely in testing, and compare the accuracy. If accuracy drops substantially below the reported 99.33% holdout and 99.81% cross-validation figures, the original numbers largely reflect memorization of patient-specific appearance rather than generalization to new patients.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an attention-augmented convolutional network can separate high-risk cervical precancer (CIN2, CIN3, carcinoma in situ, adenocarcinoma in situ, squamous cell carcinoma) from low-risk findings (normal, inflammation, CIN1) in colposcopy images with reported accuracies of 99.33% on a holdout test set and 99.81% under ten-fold cross-validation, with AUC values of 99% and 100%, respectively. The architecture pairs five convolutional layers with five CBAM blocks, and the paper attributes the discriminant power of the learned features to CBAM's channel and spatial attention. On the explainability side, the paper claims that CartoonX, a rate-distortion explanation computed in the discrete wavelet domain, localizes the clinically relevant cervix region more closely than Grad-CAM, LIME, or pixel RDE. Robustness experiments show accuracy holds up to 3% Gaussian noise and 10% blur, then declines.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that randomly splitting images into training and test sets treats every image as independent, even though the 3,153 images come from only 178 patients, so images of the same patient may appear in both sets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported accuracy transfers beyond this dataset, the model could serve as a second reader during colposcopy, flagging women who need biopsy while reducing unnecessary procedures.
  • The model's small parameter count (about 4.7 million) and 18 MB footprint suggest it could run on commodity hardware, which matters for low-resource screening programs.
  • CartoonX explanations that highlight piecewise-smooth cervical structures could give clinicians a more usable visual basis for trusting or questioning individual predictions than pixel-level heatmaps.
  • The tolerance to mild noise and blur suggests the model may be applicable to lower-quality colposcopy images without immediate retraining.
  • The CBAM-based architecture is lightweight enough to be retrained or fine-tuned on external colposcopy datasets, although the paper does not test that transfer itself.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the reported accuracy should be interpreted cautiously because the image-level random split can place images from the same patient in both training and testing; a patient-exclusive split is the natural follow-up experiment.
  • Editorial inference: the preference for CartoonX over pixel RDE suggests that wavelet-domain sparse explanations may generalize better to other medical imaging tasks where lesions are piecewise smooth, a hypothesis the paper does not test.
  • Editorial inference: extending the binary high/low task to the underlying histological grades (CIN1, CIN2, CIN3) and checking whether attention maps align with colposcopist-annotated transformation zones would be a direct way to test clinical utility.
  • Editorial inference: the robustness curve under Gaussian noise and blur gives a concrete operating envelope, but it is measured on only eight test images, so the stated thresholds are suggestive rather than statistically established.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Cervix-AID-Net, a lightweight CNN with CBAM attention modules, for binary classification of high-risk versus low-risk cervical precancer from colposcopy images, and it integrates four explainability techniques (Grad-CAM, LIME, pixel RDE, and CartoonX). Using 3,153 images from 178 patients, the authors report 99.33% holdout accuracy and 99.81% ten-fold cross-validation accuracy, compare favorably with AlexNet, GoogLeNet, and ECANet, and argue qualitatively that CartoonX provides the most useful explanations. The paper also reports robustness to Gaussian noise and blur and positions the model as a clinical decision-support tool.

Significance. If the reported performance were obtained under a valid evaluation protocol, the model would be a practically valuable and lightweight baseline for colposcopy-based risk assessment, and the study would be a useful reference point for integrating multiple XAI methods in one medical imaging pipeline. The paper gives complete architectural specifications and per-module parameter counts, which aids replication. However, the current evaluation protocol does not support the headline generalization claims: the random split is performed at the image level rather than the patient level, and the holdout accuracy is internally inconsistent with the paper's own confusion matrix. These issues are load-bearing for the central claims of accuracy, robustness, and superiority over benchmark models.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3 with Section 3.1/Table 1] The evaluation protocol in Section 3.3 randomly splits images for both holdout and ten-fold cross-validation, but Section 3.1 and Table 1 report that the 3,153 images come from only 178 patients, i.e., about 17.7 images per patient on average. A random image-level split therefore places images from the same patient in both the training and test sets with high probability. Because images from one colposcopy session share acquisition conditions, lighting, and cervix-specific appearance, the model can learn to recognize patients rather than generalizable high-risk lesions. As a result, the reported 99.33% and 99.81% accuracies do not estimate performance on unseen patients, which is the clinically relevant target. The limitation paragraph in Section 5 acknowledges the single-center dataset and lack of external validation, but it does not address this within-dataset leakage. A patient-disjoint split, or at least patient-stratified repeated cross-validation with per-patient evaluation, is required to support the central claim.
  2. [Section 4.2, Table 4 vs. Figure 5(a)] Figure 5(a) shows 7 misclassified images out of 593 holdout test images, which corresponds to 586/593 = 98.82% accuracy, but Table 4 reports 99.33% for the same holdout evaluation. The ten-fold cross-validation confusion matrix is internally consistent (3,147/3,153 = 99.81%), so the discrepancy appears specific to the holdout report. As written, the headline holdout accuracy cannot be reproduced from the paper's own figure, and this internal inconsistency must be corrected and reconciled.
  3. [Section 4.1 and Table 3] The comparison with AlexNet, GoogLeNet, and ECANet reports only point accuracies, with no confidence intervals, repeated-run variability, or paired statistical tests. Because all models are evaluated under the same leaking image-level split, the comparison does not establish that Cervix-AID-Net generalizes better to new patients; it may only indicate that it fits patient-identity cues more tightly. A patient-level evaluation with confidence intervals and, ideally, a paired test across models is needed before claiming superiority.
  4. [Section 5, Figures 7 and 8] The claim that CartoonX provides the most meticulous explanations is based on qualitative visual inspection of a small number of examples. There is no quantitative evaluation, such as faithfulness metrics, localization agreement with expert annotations, sanity checks, or observer agreement, and Table 6 reports XAI hyperparameters without a sensitivity analysis. Since explainability is a stated key contribution, this evidence is insufficient; the authors should either add a quantitative XAI comparison or explicitly reframe the XAI analysis as illustrative only. The paper itself lists XAI hyper-parameter tuning as future work, which further weakens the current claim.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 3.3] The arithmetic in the holdout description is inconsistent: 2,524 + 37 + 593 = 3,154, not 3,153 as stated in the text; also, the description "6% for validation and 94% for testing" of the 20% holdout should be aligned with the actual numbers (37 and 593).
  2. [Section 4.1 and Table 7] The dataset size is given as 3,153 images in the text and Figure 5, but Table 7 reports 3,154 images; please make these numbers consistent.
  3. [Algorithm 1] Algorithm 1 contains a duplicated "do" in the for-loop header, and the symbol k is used both for noise samples and for DWT coefficients, which is confusing; please clarify the notation.
  4. [Section 5, noise robustness paragraph] The text reports accuracy drops of 25% and 50% under Gaussian noise and blur, but it does not state whether these are absolute percentage points or relative reductions, and no quantitative table accompanies the eight illustrative images; please clarify the reporting.
  5. [Table 1] The subgroup labels and percentages in Table 1 are difficult to follow, in particular the "HPV test with referral (From 137)" row and the overlap between "HPV status unknown" and the 178 total patients; please clarify the cohort structure and denominators.
  6. [Abstract and Section 4.1] Minor language issues: "patients colposcopy images" in the abstract should be "patient colposcopy images," and "evaluation matrix" in Section 4.1 should be "evaluation metric."
  7. [Reproducibility] The paper does not include a data or code availability statement; given that a corrected patient-level evaluation is needed, releasing the evaluation code would substantially strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the performance claims are empirical comparisons, XAI claims are qualitative, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

This is an empirical deep-learning study with no theoretical derivation chain whose outputs could be confused with inputs. The central accuracy claims (99.33% holdout and 99.81% ten-fold cross-validation) are measured predictions of a CNN trained on histology-derived image labels and are compared under identical protocols with AlexNet, GoogLeNet, and ECANet. The model weights are not fitted to those benchmark accuracies, and the accuracy values are not defined by any equation in the paper. The CBAM equations (2)-(3) are quoted from external Ref. [37], and the XAI methods (Grad-CAM, LIME, pixel RDE, and CartoonX) are applied as external published algorithms. Self-citations (Refs. [39], [40], and [43]) appear only in general definitions of XAI and black-box models and do not constrain any reported result. The statement that CartoonX provides 'meticulous explanations' is a qualitative visual assessment, not a mathematically derived prediction, so it is not an instance of a fitted input being renamed as a prediction. Concerns about patient-level leakage from the random image split and the apparent inconsistency between the reported 99.33% holdout accuracy and the seven errors shown in Figure 5(a) are validity and correctness issues, not circularity. No step in the paper reduces, by construction or self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper proposes no new theory or entities. Its central performance claim rests on model hyperparameters chosen by hand, a private single-center dataset, and the implicit assumption that random image-level splitting is valid despite each patient contributing many images. The latter is violated and is the main reason the accuracy estimate is likely inflated.

free parameters (6)
  • Training epochs = 25
    Chosen by hand without reported search; the final accuracy depends on this fixed epoch count.
  • Batch size = 32
    Chosen by hand.
  • Convolutional filters = 32, 64, 128, 384, 256
    Architecture design choices, no search reported.
  • Dense layer sizes = 256, 128, 2
    Architecture design choices, no search reported.
  • Pixel RDE sparsity coefficient = 4
    Hyperparameter for the RDE optimization in Table 6.
  • CartoonX sparsity coefficient = 285
    Hyperparameter for the CartoonX optimization in Table 6.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The worst histological diagnosis for a patient is used as the label for every image from that patient
    Section 3.1 describes labeling based on international guidelines; not all images necessarily show the worst lesion, which introduces label noise.
  • domain assumption Images from the same patient are independent and can be split randomly at the image level
    Section 4.1 describes the random split into train, validation, and test sets and 10-fold CV; with 3,153 images from 178 patients, independence is violated, which is the paper's weakest assumption.
  • standard math CBAM attention equations and XAI methods are standard and taken from prior work
    Equations (1)-(3) for CBAM cite Woo et al. [37]; equations (4)-(8) for XAI cite Selvaraju et al. [41], Ribeiro et al. [44], and Kolek et al. [45].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Explainable Attention Model for Cervical Precancer Risk Classification using Colposcopic Images." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VC42W6WF

@misc{pith2026241109469,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Explainable Attention Model for Cervical Precancer Risk Classification using Colposcopic Images},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VC42W6WF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09469}
}
read the original abstract

Cervical cancer remains a major worldwide health issue, with early identification and risk assessment playing critical roles in effective preventive interventions. This paper presents the Cervix-AID-Net model for cervical precancer risk classification. The study designs and evaluates the proposed Cervix-AID-Net model based on patients colposcopy images. The model comprises a Convolutional Block Attention Module (CBAM) and convolutional layers that extract interpretable and representative features of colposcopic images to distinguish high-risk and low-risk cervical precancer. In addition, the proposed Cervix-AID-Net model integrates four explainable techniques, namely gradient class activation maps, Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations, CartoonX, and pixel rate distortion explanation based on output feature maps and input features. The evaluation using holdout and ten-fold cross-validation techniques yielded a classification accuracy of 99.33\% and 99.81\%. The analysis revealed that CartoonX provides meticulous explanations for the decision of the Cervix-AID-Net model due to its ability to provide the relevant piece-wise smooth part of the image. The effect of Gaussian noise and blur on the input shows that the performance remains unchanged up to Gaussian noise of 3\% and blur of 10\%, while the performance reduces thereafter. A comparison study of the proposed model's performance compared to other deep learning approaches highlights the Cervix-AID-Net model's potential as a supplemental tool for increasing the effectiveness of cervical precancer risk assessment. The proposed method, which incorporates the CBAM and explainable artificial integration, has the potential to influence cervical cancer prevention and early detection, improving patient outcomes and lowering the worldwide burden of this preventable disease.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09469 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The proposed explainable Cervix-AID-Net model for high-risk and low-risk classification. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of convolutional block attention module (CBAM). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic of channel attention module (CAM). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic of spatial attention module (SAM). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Confusion matrix obtained for the proposed Cervix-AID-Net model (0-Low-risk and 1-High-risk). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: ROC-AUC obtained for the Cervix-AID-Net model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example of grad-CAM and LIME explanations obtained from the last convolutional layer of the proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example of explanations obtained from CartoonX and pixel RDE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Example of different noise sources with various levels of noise disturbances. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Siegel, Lindsey A

    Freddie Bray, Jacques Ferlay, Isabelle Soerjomataram, Rebecca L. Siegel, Lindsey A. Torre, and Ahmedin Jemal. Global cancer statistics 2018: Globocan estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 68(6):394–424, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Global strategy to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem: are we on track? eClinicalMedicine, 55:101842, 2023

    eClinicalMedicine. Global strategy to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem: are we on track? eClinicalMedicine, 55:101842, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Basic information about cervical cancer, centers for disease control and prevention date= Accessed: February, 20, 2024, doi = https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/basic info/index.htm,

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Normal anatomy of the uterine cervix

    Oluwole Fadare, Andres A Roma, Oluwole Fadare, and Andres A Roma. Normal anatomy of the uterine cervix. Atlas of Uterine Pathology, pages 193–196, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Colposcopy of female genital tract

    Sumita Mehta and Poonam Sachdeva. Colposcopy of female genital tract. Technical report, Springer, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Chapter 2., Anatomy of the uterine cervix and the transformation zone

    Walter Prendiville and Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan. Chapter 2., Anatomy of the uterine cervix and the transformation zone. Lyon (FR): International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Cervical transformation zone segmenta- tion and classification based on improved inception-resnet-V2 using colposcopy images

    Srikanta Dash, Prabira Kumar Sethy, and Santi Kumari Behera. Cervical transformation zone segmenta- tion and classification based on improved inception-resnet-V2 using colposcopy images. Cancer Informatics, 22:11769351231161477, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Colposcopy and treatment of cervical precancer

    Walter Prendiville and Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan. Colposcopy and treatment of cervical precancer. Interna- tional Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    World health organization, who director-general calls for all countries to take action to help end the suffering caused by cervical cancer accessed= Accessed: February, 20, 2024, doi = https://www.who.int/news/item/18-05- 2018-who-dg-calls-for-all-countries-to-take-action-to-h...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Global elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem

    Marc Brisson and M ´elanie Drolet. Global elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem. The Lancet Oncology, 20(3):319–321, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Pollack, William Dupree, and Thomas C

    Lynette Denny, Louise Kuhn, Michelle De Souza, Amy E. Pollack, William Dupree, and Thomas C. Wright. Screen-and-Treat Approaches for Cervical Cancer Prevention in Low-Resource SettingsA Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA, 294(17):2173–2181, 11 2005

    2005

  4. [12]

    Stoler, Michelle D

    Mark H. Stoler, Michelle D. Vichnin, Alex Ferenczy, Daron G. Ferris, Gonzalo Perez, Jorma Paavonen, Elmar A. Joura, Henning Djursing, Kristj´an Sigurdsson, Lucy Jefferson, Frances Alvarez, Heather L. Sings, Shuang Lu, Margaret K. James, Alfred Saah, Richard M. Haupt, and for t...

    2011

  5. [13]

    Artificial intelligence for breast cancer detection in screening mammography in sweden: a prospective, population-based, paired-reader, non-inferiority study

    Karin Dembrower, Alessio Crippa, Eugenia Col´on, Martin Eklund, and Fredrik Strand. Artificial intelligence for breast cancer detection in screening mammography in sweden: a prospective, population-based, paired-reader, non-inferiority study. The Lancet Digital Health, 5(10):e...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Medical image fusion based on machine learning for health diagnosis and monitoring of colorectal cancer

    Yifeng Peng and Haijun Deng. Medical image fusion based on machine learning for health diagnosis and monitoring of colorectal cancer. BMC Medical Imaging, 24(1):24, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Artificial intelligence in brain tumor imaging: A step toward personalized medicine

    Maurizio C`e, Giovanni Irmici, Chiara Foschini, Giulia Maria Danesini, Lydia Viviana Falsitta, Maria Lina Serio, Andrea Fontana, Carlo Martinenghi, Giancarlo Oliva, and Michaela Cellina. Artificial intelligence in brain tumor imaging: A step toward personalized medicine. Curre...

    2023

  8. [16]

    Computer-aided cervical cancer diagnosis using time-lapsed colposcopic images

    Yuexiang Li, Jiawei Chen, Peng Xue, Chao Tang, Jia Chang, Chunyan Chu, Kai Ma, Qing Li, Yefeng Zheng, and Youlin Qiao. Computer-aided cervical cancer diagnosis using time-lapsed colposcopic images. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 39(11):3403–3415, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Elakkiya, V

    R. Elakkiya, V . Subramaniyaswamy, V . Vijayakumar, and Aniket Mahanti. Cervical cancer diagnostics healthcare system using hybrid object detection adversarial networks. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 26(4):1464–1471, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Cervical cancer diagnosis using very deep networks over different activation functions

    Khaled Mabrouk Amer Adweb, Nadire Cavus, and Boran Sekeroglu. Cervical cancer diagnosis using very deep networks over different activation functions. IEEE Access, 9:46612–46625, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Role of artificial intelligence interpretation of colposcopic images in cervical cancer screening

    Seongmin Kim, Hwajung Lee, Sanghoon Lee, Jae-Yun Song, Jae-Kwan Lee, and Nak-Woo Lee. Role of artificial intelligence interpretation of colposcopic images in cervical cancer screening. Healthcare, 10(3), 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Colponet for automated cervical cancer screening using colposcopy images

    Sumindar Kaur Saini, Vasudha Bansal, Ravinder Kaur, and Mamta Juneja. Colponet for automated cervical cancer screening using colposcopy images. Machine Vision and Applications, 31:1–15, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Cervix type and cervical cancer classification system using deep learning techniques

    Lidiya Wubshet Habtemariam, Elbetel Taye Zewde, and Gizeaddis Lamesgin Simegn. Cervix type and cervical cancer classification system using deep learning techniques. Medical Devices: Evidence and Research, 15:163– 176, 2022. PMID: 35734419

    2022

  14. [22]

    Computer-aided diagnosis of cervical dysplasia using colposcopic images

    Jing-Hang Ma, Shang-Feng You, Ji-Sen Xue, Xiao-Lin Li, Yi-Yao Chen, Yan Hu, and Zhen Feng. Computer-aided diagnosis of cervical dysplasia using colposcopic images. Frontiers in Oncology, 12:905623, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Classification and diagnosis of cervical lesions based on colposcopy images using deep fully convolutional networks: A man-machine comparison cohort study

    Binhua Dong, Huifeng Xue, Ye Li, Ping Li, Jiancui Chen, Tao Zhang, Lihua Chen, Diling Pan, Peizhong Liu, and Pengming Sun. Classification and diagnosis of cervical lesions based on colposcopy images using deep fully convolutional networks: A man-machine comparison cohort study...

    2022

  16. [24]

    A data driven approach to cervigram image analysis and classification

    Edward Kim and Xiaolei Huang. A data driven approach to cervigram image analysis and classification. In Color medical image analysis, pages 1–13. Springer, 2013

    2013

  17. [25]

    Classification of cervical neoplasms on colposcopic photography using deep learning

    Bum-Joo Cho, Youn Jin Choi, Myung-Je Lee, Ju Han Kim, Ga-Hyun Son, Sung-Ho Park, Hong-Bae Kim, Yeon-Ji Joo, Hye-Yon Cho, Min Sun Kyung, et al. Classification of cervical neoplasms on colposcopic photography using deep learning. Scientific reports, 10(1):13652, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Computer-aided diagnostic system based on deep learning for classifying colposcopy images

    Lu Liu, Ying Wang, Xiaoli Liu, Sai Han, Lin Jia, Lihua Meng, Ziyan Yang, Wei Chen, Youzhong Zhang, and Xu Qiao. Computer-aided diagnostic system based on deep learning for classifying colposcopy images. Annals of Translational Medicine, 9(13), 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Diagnosis of cervical cancer based on ensemble deep learning network using colposcopy images

    Venkatesan Chandran, MG Sumithra, Alagar Karthick, Tony George, M Deivakani, Balan Elakkiya, Umashankar Subramaniam, S Manoharan, et al. Diagnosis of cervical cancer based on ensemble deep learning network using colposcopy images. BioMed Research International, 2021, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Artificial intelligence in colposcopic examination: A promising tool to assist junior colposcopists

    Aiyuan Wu, Peng Xue, Guzhalinuer Abulizi, Dilinuer Tuerxun, Remila Rezhake, and Youlin Qiao. Artificial intelligence in colposcopic examination: A promising tool to assist junior colposcopists. Frontiers in Medicine, 10:1060451, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Classification of images acquired with colposcopy using artificial neural networks

    Priscyla W Sim ˜oes, Narjara B Izumi, Ramon S Casagrande, Ramon Venson, Carlos D Veronezi, Gustavo P Moretti, Edroaldo L da Rocha, Cristian Cechinel, Luciane B Ceretta, Eros Comunello, et al. Classification of images acquired with colposcopy using artificial neural networks. C...

    2014

  22. [30]

    Mueller, Christopher T

    Mercy Nyamewaa Asiedu, Anish Simhal, Usamah Chaudhary, Jenna L. Mueller, Christopher T. Lam, John W. Schmitt, Gino Venegas, Guillermo Sapiro, and Nimmi Ramanujam. Development of algorithms for automated detection of cervical pre-cancers with a low-cost, point-of-care, pocket c...

    2019

  23. [31]

    Application of deep learning to the classification of uterine cervical squamous epithelial lesion from colposcopy images combined with hpv types

    Yasunari Miyagi, Kazuhiro Takehara, Yoko Nagayasu, and Takahito Miyake. Application of deep learning to the classification of uterine cervical squamous epithelial lesion from colposcopy images combined with hpv types. Oncology letters, 19(2):1602–1610, 2020. 18 Running Title f...

    2020

  24. [32]

    Rodney Long, and Sameer Antani

    Dezhao Song, Edward Kim, Xiaolei Huang, Joseph Patruno, H´ector Mu˜noz-Avila, Jeff Heflin, L. Rodney Long, and Sameer Antani. Multimodal entity coreference for cervical dysplasia diagnosis. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 34(1):229–245, 2015

    2015

  25. [33]

    Application of deep learning to the classification of uterine cervical squamous epithelial lesion from colposcopy images

    Yasunari Miyagi, Kazuhiro Takehara, and Takahito Miyake. Application of deep learning to the classification of uterine cervical squamous epithelial lesion from colposcopy images. Molecular and clinical oncology, 11(6):583– 589, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    2019 ASCCP risk-based management consensus guidelines: Updates through 2023

    Rebecca B Perkins, Richard S Guido, Philip E Castle, David Chelmow, Mark H Einstein, Francisco Garcia, Warner K Huh, Jane J Kim, Anna-Barbara Moscicki, Ritu Nayar, et al. 2019 ASCCP risk-based management consensus guidelines: Updates through 2023. Journal of lower genital trac...

    2019

  27. [35]

    L. Itti, C. Koch, and E. Niebur. A model of saliency-based visual attention for rapid scene analysis. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 20(11):1254–1259, 1998

    1998

  28. [36]

    Learning to combine foveal glimpses with a third-order boltzmann machine

    Hugo Larochelle and Geoffrey E Hinton. Learning to combine foveal glimpses with a third-order boltzmann machine. In J. Lafferty, C. Williams, J. Shawe-Taylor, R. Zemel, and A. Culotta, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 23. Curran Associates, Inc., 2010

    2010

  29. [37]

    CBAM: Convolutional block attention module

    Sanghyun Woo, Jongchan Park, Joon-Young Lee, and In So Kweon. CBAM: Convolutional block attention module. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pages 3–19, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    PToPI: A comprehensive review, analysis, and knowledge representation of binary classification performance measures/metrics

    G¨urol Canbek, Tugba Taskaya Temizel, and Seref Sagiroglu. PToPI: A comprehensive review, analysis, and knowledge representation of binary classification performance measures/metrics. SN Computer Science, 4(1):13, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Khare, Victoria Blanes-Vidal, Esmaeil S

    Smith K. Khare, Victoria Blanes-Vidal, Esmaeil S. Nadimi, and U. Rajendra Acharya. Emotion recognition and artificial intelligence: A systematic review (2014–2023) and research recommendations. Information Fusion, 102:102019, 2024

    2014

  32. [40]

    Khare, Sonja March, Prabal Datta Barua, Vikram M

    Smith K. Khare, Sonja March, Prabal Datta Barua, Vikram M. Gadre, and U. Rajendra Acharya. Application of data fusion for automated detection of children with developmental and mental disorders: A systematic review of the last decade. Information Fusion, 99:101898, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Selvaraju, Michael Cogswell, Abhishek Das, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra

    Ramprasaath R. Selvaraju, Michael Cogswell, Abhishek Das, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. Grad-CAM: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 618–626, 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    El-Dahshan, Mahmoud M

    El-Sayed A. El-Dahshan, Mahmoud M. Bassiouni, Smith K. Khare, Ru-San Tan, and U. Rajendra Acharya. ExHyptNet: An explainable diagnosis of hypertension using efficientnet with PPG signals. Expert Systems with Applications, 239:122388, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Khare and U

    Smith K. Khare and U. Rajendra Acharya. Adazd-Net: Automated adaptive and explainable alzheimer’s disease detection system using EEG signals. Knowledge-Based Systems, 278:110858, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Why should i trust you? explaining the predictions of any classifier

    Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. Why should i trust you? explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 1135–1144, 2016

    2016

  37. [45]

    Cartoon explanations of image classifiers

    Stefan Kolek, Duc Anh Nguyen, Ron Levie, Joan Bruna, and Gitta Kutyniok. Cartoon explanations of image classifiers. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 443–458. Springer, 2022

    2022

  38. [46]

    The history began from alexnet a comprehensive survey on deep learning approaches

    Md Zahangir Alom, Tarek M Taha, Christopher Yakopcic, Stefan Westberg, Paheding Sidike, Mst Shamima Nasrin, Brian C Van Esesn, Abdul A S Awwal, and Vijayan K Asari. The history began from alexnet a comprehensive survey on deep learning approaches. arXiv preprint arXiv1803.01164, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Face recognition and classification using googleNET architecture

    R Anand, T Shanthi, MS Nithish, and S Lakshman. Face recognition and classification using googleNET architecture. In Soft Computing for Problem Solving SocProS 2018, Volume 1, pages 261–269. Springer, 2020

    2018

  40. [48]

    ECA-Net efficient channel attention for deep convolutional neural networks

    Qilong Wang, Banggu Wu, Pengfei Zhu, Peihua Li, Wangmeng Zuo, and Qinghua Hu. ECA-Net efficient channel attention for deep convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEECVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11534–11542, 2020. 19

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.