Skip to main content
. 2021 Sep 24;12:5639. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-25296-x

Fig. 3. Clinical-level experimental results.

Fig. 3

a The ROC of the RNN model for classifying the slides of groups E and F (n = 1,170). b Comparison of the RNN model and three cytopathologists at the slide level (n = 121). The most confusing 121 slides of the 1,170 slides were classified by the RNN model and the three cytopathologists. Each green triangle refers to 1-specificity and sensitivity of a cytopathologist’s result. c Comparison of the HR model and the three cytopathologists at the tile level. Randomly selected 1018 positive test tiles and 3,047 negative test tiles with a size of 256 × 256 (0.243 μm/pixel) from groups E and F (n = 4,065 tiles) were simultaneously classified by the HR model and three cytopathologists. d The average true positive numbers of the recommended top 10 and top 20 lesion cells on positive slides in groups E and F (n = 447), evaluated by three cytopathologists separately. The boxes indicate the upper and lower quartile values, the whiskers indicate the 95% and 5% quantile values, the middle bold solid line and dotted lines indicate the mean and median values, and the scatter dots indicates outliers.