| Literature DB >> 33364831 |
Jie Zhou1,2, Zhi Ying Zeng3, Li Li1.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is a sort of new technical science which can simulate, extend and expand human intelligence by developing theories, methods and application systems. In the last five years, the application of AI in medical research has become a hot topic in modern science and technology. Gynecological malignant tumors involves a wide range of knowledge, and AI can play an important part in these aspects, such as medical image recognition, auxiliary diagnosis, drug research and development, treatment scheme formulation and other fields. The purpose of this paper is to describe the progress of AI in gynecological malignant tumors and discuss some problems in its application. It is believed that AI improves the efficiency of diagnosis, reduces the burden of clinicians, and improves the effect of treatment and prognosis. AI will play an irreplaceable role in the field of gynecological malignant oncology and will promote the development of medicine and further promote the transformation from traditional medicine to precision medicine and preventive medicine. However, there are also some problems in the application of AI in gynecologic malignant tumors. For example, AI, inseparable from human participation, still needs to be more "humanized", and needs to further protect patients' privacy and health, improve legal and insurance protection, and further improve according to local ethnic conditions and national conditions. However, it is believed that with the continuous development of AI, especially ensemble classifier, and deep learning will have a profound influence on the future of medical technology, which is a powerful driving force for future medical innovation and reform.Entities:
Keywords: artificial intelligence; diagnosis; gynecological malignant tumor; prognosis; treatment
Year: 2020 PMID: 33364831 PMCID: PMC7751777 DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S279990
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Manag Res ISSN: 1179-1322 Impact factor: 3.989
Figure 1Schematic diagram of application of artificial intelligence in gynecological malignant tumors.
Performance Indices of the Three Applied Classification Models for Diagnosis of Endometrial Carcinoma
| Performance Indices | CART | Logistic Regression | Feed-forward ANN |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 78.3% | 76.4% | 86.8% |
| Specificity | 76.4% | 66.7% | 83.3% |
| PPV | 83.0% | 77.1% | 88.5% |
| NPV | 70.5% | 65.8% | 81.1% |
| FPR | 23.6% | 33.3% | 16.7% |
| FNR | 21.7% | 23.6% | 13.2% |
| OA | 77.5% | 72.5% | 85.4% |
| Odds ratio | 3.3 | 6.5 | 32.9 |
Note: Reprinted from Public Health, 164, Pergialiotis V, Pouliakis A, Parthenis C, et al. The utility of artificial neural networks and classification and regression trees for the prediction of endometrial cancer in postmenopausal women, 1–6, Copyright (2018), with permission from Elsevier.21
Abbreviations: ANN, artificial neural network; CART, classification and regression tree; FNR, false negative rate; FPR, false positive rate; NPV, negative prediction value; OA, overall accuracy; PPV, positive prediction value.
Performance Indices of the Three Methodologies for Diagnosis of Cervical Cancer
| Methodology | Author | Year | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NN | Elayaraja and Suganthi | 2018 | 97.42 | 99.36 | 98.29 |
| SVM | Chen and Zhang | 2019 | 83.21 | 94.79 | – |
| QSL | Bergmeir et al | 2012 | 75 | 76 | 75.5 |
Note: Reproduced from Elayaraja P, Suganthi M. Automatic approach for cervical cancer detection and segmentation using neural network classifier. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2018;19(12):3571–3580.(). Creative Commons license and disclaimer available from:().26
Abbreviations: NN, neural network; SVM, support vector machine; QSL, quasi supervised learning.
Figure 2Output of different classifiers for Pap smear level classification.
Figure 3The results of ANN and the importance of various predicting factors for recurrent ovarian cancer. Importance of factors predicting for complete cytoreduction (A). Importance of factors predicting for survival (B).
Model Performance on Predicting Recurrence-free Survival and Three-year Recurrence of High-grade Serous Ovarian Cancer (HGSOC)
| Models | Cohorts | C-Index (95%CI) | AUC (95%CI) | ACC (95%CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical Model | Primary | 0.680 (0.642, 0.717) | 0.774 (0.727, 0.826) | 0.735 (0.689, 0.784) |
| Validation 1 | 0.448 (0.402, 0.492) | 0.443 (0.381, 0.506) | 0.449 (0.396, 0.503) | |
| Validation 2 | 0.631 (0.588, 0.674) | 0.400 (0.268, 0.536) | 0.541 (0.480, 0.598) | |
| DL-CPH Model | Primary | 0.717 (0.683, 0.755) | 0.833 (0.792, 0.874) | 0.776 (0.733, 0.820) |
| Validation 1 | 0.713 (0.681, 0.750) | 0.772 (0.721, 0.820) | 0.714 (0.665, 0.760) | |
| Validation 2 | 0.694 (0.658, 0.730) | 0.825 (0.765, 0.893) | 0.730 (0.678, 0.786) |
Notes: C-index measures the performance of the RFS prediction. AUC and ACC evaluate the performance of the three-year recurrence prediction. Reproduced from Wang S, Liu Z, Rong Y, et al. Deep learning provides a new computed tomography-based prognostic biomarker for recurrence prediction in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2019;132:171–177. Creative Commons license and disclaimer available from:().54
Abbreviations: AUC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; ACC, accuracy; C-index, Harrell’s concordance index; RFS, recurrence-free survival.
Figure 4Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for predicting epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) recurrence with candidate biomarkers: combining biomarkers (AUC=0.964), preoperative biomarkers (AUC=0.815), postoperative biomarkers (AUC=0.909), CA125 (AUC=0.6126).
The Accuracy, Sensitivity, Specificity, and the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve Obtained for the Set of 23 Variables
| Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | AUC | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PNN | 0.892 | 0.975 | 0.609 | 0.818 | <0.001 |
| MLP | 0.802 | 0.937 | 0.339 | 0.659 | <0.001 |
| GEP | 0.800 | 0.930 | 0.352 | 0.651 | <0.001 |
| SVM | 0.740 | 0.956 | 0.000 | 0.478 | <0.001 |
| LRA | 0.703 | 0.804 | 0.357 | 0.559 | Not applicable |
| RBFN | 0.693 | 0.780 | 0.396 | 0.640 | <0.001 |
| K-means | 0.611 | 0.757 | 0.109 | 0.406 | <0.001 |
Note: Reproduced from Obrzut B, Kusy M, Semczuk A, et al. Prediction of 5-year overall survival in cervical cancer patients treated with radical hysterectomyusing computational intelligence methods. BMC Cancer. 2017;17(1):840. Creative Commons license and disclaimer available from: ().57
Abbreviations: AUC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; PNN, probabilistic neural network; MLP, multilayer perceptron network; GEP, gene expression programming classifier; SVM, support vector machines algorithm; LRA, linear regression analysis; RBFN, radial basis function neural network; LRA, linear regression analysis.
Figure 5Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for predicting five-year overall survival in cervical cancer patients treated with radical hysterectomy with different models.