A systematic review of machine learning and deep learning approaches for gastrointestinal cancer diagnosis


Abstract

Globally, one of the prominent causes of cancer-related deaths is gastrointestinal cancer. It includes the tumour in the regions of the gastrointestinal tract, such as the esophagus, stomach, liver, pancreas, and colon. Improving patient outcomes requires an early and accurate diagnosis, but traditional diagnostic techniques are frequently laborious and subjective. Across various modalities, machine learning and deep learning techniques have become effective solutions for computerized diagnostics, categorization, and lesion segmentation. Through an emphasis on the larger category of gastrointestinal cancer rather than specific cancer types, this survey offers a thorough review of machine learning and deep learning implementations in gastrointestinal cancer diagnosis. When gastrointestinal cancers are reviewed collectively, common imaging and pathological patterns can be found, model cross-learning is facilitated, and the creation of broadly applicable diagnostic frameworks is supported. Publicly accessible datasets, important assessment metrics, and challenges, such as restricted dataset diversity, no external validation, and limited model interpretability, are highlighted in this paper. The review finds common strengths and limitations of current machine learning and deep learning approaches by synthesizing studies across various gastrointestinal cancers. It also describes future research directions that can enhance the real-world clinical implementation and reliability, including multimodal data usage, self-supervised and federated learning, and interpretable AI frameworks.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].