Developments in deep learning artificial neural network techniques for medical image analysis and interpretation
Open accessAbstract
Deep learning has revolutionised medical image analysis, offering the possibility of automated, efficient, and highly accurate diagnostic solutions. This article explores recent developments in deep learning techniques applied to medical imaging, including convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for classification and segmentation, recurrent neural networks (RNNs) for temporal analysis, autoencoders for feature extraction, and generative adversarial networks (GANs) for image synthesis and augmentation. Additionally, U-Net models for segmentation, vision transformers (ViTs) for global feature extraction, and hybrid models integrating multiple architectures are explored. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) process were used, and searches on PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases were conducted. The findings highlight key challenges such as data availability, interpretability, overfitting, and computational requirements. While deep learning has demonstrated significant potential in enhancing diagnostic accuracy across multiple medical imaging modalities-including MRI, CT, US, and X-ray-factors such as model trust, data privacy, and ethical considerations remain ongoing concerns. The study underscores the importance of integrating multimodal data, improving computational efficiency, and advancing explainability to facilitate broader clinical adoption. Future research directions emphasize optimising deep learning models for real-time applications, enhancing interpretability, and integrating deep learning with existing healthcare frameworks for improved patient outcomes.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Over the last five years, the application of ML in diagnosing PAS has undergone significant evolution, with researchers exploring more complex neural networks, improved feature extraction techniques, and larger, multi-institutional datasets.
“Over the last five years, the application of ML in diagnosing PAS has undergone significant evolution, with researchers exploring more complex neural networks, improved feature extraction techniques, and larger, multi-institutional datasets to enhance diagnostic performance [33-35].”
From Machine Learning in Maternity: Early Diagnosis of Placenta Accreta Spectrum (2026) · cites this paper as [35]
The Introduction (§1.2) and Conclusions (§5; pages unavailable) describe advances in neural-network architectures and feature extraction for medical imaging generally. They do not establish a five-year trend in diagnosing placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) or a move toward larger, multi-institutional PAS datasets. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 139 · Cited by 53
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [67]Zhang Y. A Better Autoencoder for Image: Convolutional Autoencoder Proceedings of the ICONIP17-DCEC Guangzhou, China 14–18 October 2017 11 21 Available online: http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/Tom.Gedeon/conf/ABCs2018/paper/ABCs2018_paper_58.pdf (accessed on 17 April 2025)
- [128]Dosovitskiy A. Beyer L. Kolesnikov A. Weissenborn D. Zhai X. Unterthiner T. Dehghani M. Minderer M. Heigold G. Gelly S. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale arXiv 2021 2010.11929
- Authors
- Shobayo, O., & Saatchi, R.
- Affiliations
- Sheffield Hallam University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Shobayo, Olamilekan
- Venue
- Diagnostics
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2025-04-23
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1072
- ISSN
- 2075-4418 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC12071792
- OpenAlex
- W4409730072
- Cited by
- 53
- References
- 139
- Citations by year
- 2026: 35 · 2025: 18
- FWCI
- 3.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Diagnostics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- SHURA (Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive) (Sheffield Hallam University) (acceptedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Keywords
- deep learning for medical imaging, convolutional neural networks, image segmentation, recurrent neural networks, autoencoder, generative adversarial networks, U-Net, vision transformer, hybrid deep learning model, medical image classification, data augmentation, explainability, overfitting, multimodal medical data, clinical adoption of AI, data privacy and ethics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review