In recent years, few studies have been conducted on the hierarchical assisted diagnosis of cervical lesions and most of them are still insufficient and their clinical significance is extremely limited. Based on this, this paper designs densely contextual transformer networks (DCTNet) to diagnose cervical lesions. DCTNet benefits from its internal DCT module and multi-spectral channel attention (MSCA) module to diagnose cervical lesions efficiently. First, the DCT module effectively combines the ability of the transformer to capture global contextual information with the ability of the convolutional neural networks to capture neighboring local contextual information, which enhances the visual representation of the network. Second, the MSCA module can effectively use the information of more frequency components to enrich the feature representation ability of the network. The results show that under the same research conditions, the diagnostic performance of DCTNet is generally superior to other current diagnostic methods; the area under the curve value is 0.8332. While the clinical diagnostic performance reaches the level of advanced physicians, close to the expert physicians, with excellent auxiliary diagnostic performance. Therefore, DCTNet can effectively alleviate the pressure on physicians in resource-poor areas.

According to the global cancer statistics report released by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization, the number of new cases of cervical cancer in the world reached 604,127 and the number of deaths was 341,831, which ranked fourth in the incidence and mortality of female cancers (Sung et al., 2021). At the same time, the incidence and mortality of cervical cancer are gradually increasing and patients are getting younger. Currently, a quarter of the affected population are young women aged 20–39 (Siegel et al., 2020, 2023), so early prevention and diagnosis of cervical cancer are particularly important. Studies have shown that the main cause of cervical cancer is persistent infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (Bouvard et al., 2009) and it usually takes years or even decades for patients to develop cervical cancer from infection. This is the main cause of cervical cancer, which is called cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). This period is called CIN, which can be categorized into CIN1, CIN2 and CIN3 according to the degree of clinical lesions (Safaeian et al., 2007). In clinical practice, CIN1 is often referred to as low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL), CIN2 and CIN3 are collectively referred to as high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL).With conservative observation and timely treatment, most lesions in LSIL patients can be cleared by the autoimmune system. However, if it progresses to HSIL or even higher stages, the survival rate drops significantly by 20%-50% (Pfaendler et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2017). Although cervical cancer is currently the only malignant tumor that can be prevented by the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine (Olaf and Sigrid, 2015; Falcaro et al., 2021). Due to the high price of the vaccine and regional differences, its prevalence is not high enough to meet the needs of most women in prevention and treatment (Dong et al., 2021). Therefore, it is of great significance to carry out large-scale screening for cervical lesions in the female population so as to greatly reduce the morbidity and mortality of patients through early detection and diagnosis.

Currently, the main cervical cancer screening techniques include Pap smear (pap), HPV testing, thinprep cytologic (TCT) testing and colposcopic visualization (Cohen et al., 2019). The former techniques are relatively complex and expensive and require high facilities, while colposcopy has the advantages of being simple to operate, inexpensive and relatively noninvasive, making it the first choice for cervical cancer screening (Waxman et al., 2017). However, it is easily affected by the lighting environment, individual differences of the subjects. The accuracy of the test is highly dependent on the experience and expertise of the clinician, so its disadvantage is the strong subjectivity of the test process. At the same time, in large-scale group screening, the screening efficiency of physicians is reduced and the possibility of leakage and misdiagnosis is inevitably increased.

In recent years, the use of artificial intelligence technology to make up for the deficiencies in cervical cancer screening has become a hot research topic in the field of computer-aided diagnosis. That is, cervical cancer images collected by colposcopy imaging technology are used for automatic identification and auxiliary diagnosis, which realizes the automation of clinical cervical cancer screening to reduce the workload of doctors and reduce missed detections and false detections. Clinically, it is divided into four categories according to the degree of lesions, namely, normal, LSIL, HSIL and Cancer. However, the visual similarity between the images of each category is extremely high [see Figures 1(a)-(d)], which narrows the scope of each category. The inter-class variance between classes and the image itself also have light reflection [see Figures 1(e) and (f)], and occlusion [see Figures 1(g) and (h)], which increases the risk of cervical cancer and diagnostic challenges.

Figure 1.
Eight intraoperative cervical images labelled a to h showing cervical o s appearance before, during, and after surgical manipulation.The eight intraoperative cervical views are labelled a to h. Panels a to d show the cervix with a central external o s of varying shape and opening, including slit-like and irregular forms. Panels e and f highlight selected surface regions with rectangular markings and show minor bleeding around the o s. Panel g shows surgical instruments retracting tissue near the cervix with visible bleeding. Panel h shows the cervix after manipulation with instruments in place and a small central opening.

(a)-(d) Are expressed as the cancer, HSIL, LSIL, normal images, with extremely high similarity between each grade; (e)-(f)light reflection on the cervical surface (marked with red frame); (g)-(h) artifacts (medical device in this case)

Figure 1.
Eight intraoperative cervical images labelled a to h showing cervical o s appearance before, during, and after surgical manipulation.The eight intraoperative cervical views are labelled a to h. Panels a to d show the cervix with a central external o s of varying shape and opening, including slit-like and irregular forms. Panels e and f highlight selected surface regions with rectangular markings and show minor bleeding around the o s. Panel g shows surgical instruments retracting tissue near the cervix with visible bleeding. Panel h shows the cervix after manipulation with instruments in place and a small central opening.

(a)-(d) Are expressed as the cancer, HSIL, LSIL, normal images, with extremely high similarity between each grade; (e)-(f)light reflection on the cervical surface (marked with red frame); (g)-(h) artifacts (medical device in this case)

Close Figure 1.

Benefiting from the powerful feature extraction capability of deep learning (LeCun et al., 2015), this technology has led to a wide range of applications in the field of cervical lesion diagnosis. Examples include the use of Pap smear images for cervical cancer diagnosis (Pirovano et al., 2021; Rahaman et al., 2021; Liu, 2022a; Attallah, 2023; Pramanik et al., 2023), optical coherence tomography (OCT) images for diagnosis (Wang et al., 2023) and colposcopy images for assisted diagnosis. Currently, deep convolutional neural networks (CNN) have achieved excellent comprehensive performance compared to both manual diagnosis by clinical colposcopists and cervical lesion diagnosis methods based on traditional image processing techniques. Table 1 summarizes recent research on methods for cervical lesion diagnosis using colposcopic images. Zhang et al. (2020) proposed a pretrained densely connected convolutional network architecture that, through fine-tuning strategies, enabled the model to achieve performance comparable to that of advanced practitioners. Their team subsequently developed a novel data augmentation strategy to optimize model output by integrating and fusing multiple CNN decision features, which further improved the accuracy of cervical lesion diagnosis and enhanced the applicability of pre-cancer screening (Luo et al., 2020). Although their study achieved promising results, it was limited to binary classification (dichotomous diagnosis), which provides limited clinical utility for comprehensive patient management.

Table 1.

Review of research on cervical lesions image diagnosis

ReferenceMethodDiagnostic categoriesDatasetsResults
Zhang et al. (2020) Pre-trained DenseNetPositive (HSIL+)/negative (normal and LSIL)1109 cases (positive: 494, negative: 615)ACC: 0.731 AUC: 0.752
Luo et al. (2020) MDFI(inner -to-outer)Positive (HSIL+)/negative (normal and LSIL)1109 cases (positive: 494, negative: 615)ACC: 0.728 AUC: 0.781
Saini et al. (2020) ColpoNetType1 (normal and CIN1)/Type2 (CIN2+)800 images (type 1: 400, type 2: 400)ACC: 0.814
Cho et al. (2020) LAST systemHigh-risk/low-risk791 cases (high-risk:554, low-risk:237)ACC: 0.669 AUC: 0.708
Bai et al. (2020) CLDNetPositive (CIN2+)/negative (normal and CIN1)6549 images (positive: 3299, negative: 3250)Precision: 0.925 Recall: 0.856
Li et al. (2020) ResNet + E-GCNPositive (LSIL+)/negative7668 cases (positive: 4065, negative: 3603)ACC: 0.783 Recall: 0.783
Aina et al. (2021) DenseNetNormal/CIN1/CIN2/CIN3/cancer909 imagesACC: 0.963 Sen: 0.950
Liu et al. (2021a; 2021b)ResNet + clinical featuresNormal/LSIL+7530 cases (normal: 3966, LSIL+: 3564)ACC:0.886 AUC:0.953
Elakkiya et al. (2022) FSOD-GANNormal/abnormal3105 images (normal: 1933, abnormal: 1112)ACC: 0.990
Chen et al. (2022b)CervixNetNormal/HSIL9888 images (HSIL: 4945, normal: 4943)mAP: 0.238 Ap50:0.507
Chen et al. (2022a)CRFNetHSIL12960 imagesmAP: 0.232 Ap50: 0.508
Fu et al. (2022) CNN + MLRPositive/negative2160 cases (positive: 442, negative: 1718)AUC: 0.921 Sen: 0.875
Ma et al. (2022) RBF-SVMPositive (HSIL and cancer)/negative (normal and LSIL)986 cases (positive: 137, negative: 849)ACC: 0.818 Sen: 0.512
Xu et al. (2023) CTIFINormal/LSIL/HSIL/cancer715 cases 2145 imagesACC: 0.710 AUC: 0.876

Saini et al. (2020) proposed ColpoNet, a cervical cancer classification method based on DenseNet architecture, achieving superior results compared to other deep learning models. Similarly, Cho et al. (2020) developed a classification method based on the lower anogenital squamous terminology (LAST) system to categorize lesions as either high-risk or low-risk using deep learning approaches. Despite promising performance metrics, both studies (Saini et al., 2020; Cho et al., 2020) were constrained by their binary classification frameworks, limiting their clinical applicability. In contrast, Aina et al. (2021) optimized fine-tuned CNNs through mixed-precision training combined with advanced techniques such as data augmentation, 1-cycle policy and discriminative fine-tuning. Their approach achieved five-class classification on a limited dataset with an accuracy of 96.3% and sensitivity of 95%, demonstrating significant potential for clinical assistance. Similarly, Liu et al. (2021a; 2021b) mapped lesion probability distributions for each patient using a ResNet-based framework and fused clinical features to construct a combined diagnostic model. Their results were compared against diagnostic assessments from both senior and junior colposcopists, with the model achieving performance comparable to the senior specialist. While their work demonstrated that the fusion of clinical features and CNNs produces superior results to either approach alone, this method requires manual filtering of clinical features, preventing it from being a true end-to-end solution and limiting its practical clinical deployment. Additionally, their exclusion of images with cervical abnormalities and occlusions to ensure image clarity further restricts the model’s applicability in real-world clinical scenarios.

In the field of object detection, networks capture deep features from numerous images through nonlinear operations, after which candidate target regions obtained through classification enable precise detection of regions of interest. This approach has provided new perspectives for cervical lesion diagnosis, with research based on faster region-based convolutional neural networks (Faster R-CNN) gaining prominence (Ren et al., 2017). The primary advantage of this architecture is its implementation of region proposal networks to identify target regions of interest, enabling rapid and efficient detection. Building on this foundation, Elakkiya et al. (2022) proposed the faster small object detection neural networks-generative adversarial networks (FSOD-GAN) for colposcopic image analysis. Their approach automatically detects cervical abnormalities using a combination of Faster R-CNN and generative adversarial networks (GANs), performing binary normal/abnormal classification. In contrast to this work, other literature (Bai et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020) has pursued detection through specialized CNN structures. Bai et al. (2020) achieved detection of lesion regions above the CIN2 threshold by incorporating a feature recalibration mechanism into CNN architecture to enhance utilization of relevant features while suppressing noncontributory ones. Li et al. (2020), working with multi-frame time-lapse colposcopy images, developed a system that identifies LSIL+ lesion regions through a key frame feature encoding network combined with a feature fusion network. While innovative, these approaches remain insufficient for comprehensive clinical deployment due to their limited scope and binary classification frameworks. Another notable contribution comes from researchers who developed a novel feature augmentation mechanism incorporating a local bin excitation module to effectively detect HSIL regions. This work represents one of the first implementations of combined global and local feature augmentation mechanisms for cervical lesion detection tasks. However, similar to Li et al. (2020), this approach fails to address the detection of other lesion classes and consequently lacks broad clinical applicability.

Alternative approaches to cervical lesion diagnosis have emerged from multimodal data fusion perspectives (Chen et al., 2022a; Fu et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2023). Chen et al. (2022a) proposed a multi-modality (acetic and iodine) corresponding region fusion network (CRFNet) that detects HSIL lesion regions across both imaging modalities. Their method extracts feature maps and generates proposals within each modality before performing proposal shifting to obtain corresponding region features, ultimately fusing these features using a novel channel attention mechanism. Xu et al. (2023) developed a tri-visual image (saline, acetic, iodine) feature integration framework guided by clinical expertise. By learning and fusing features from all three visual image types of the same patient, their model achieved diagnostic performance comparable to expert physicians. However, their approach required preprocessing steps, including ROI region cropping and elimination of light reflection areas, limiting its clinical adaptability. Ma et al. (2022) adopted a different strategy by first segmenting lesion areas from dual-modality colposcopic images (acetic and iodine) using segmentation algorithms, then extracting color and texture features from these segmented regions and fusing them with clinical information (TCT results, HPV test outcomes, patient age) before final classification. Similarly, Fu et al. (2022) constructed separate deep learning models based on saline, acetic and iodine images using CNNs, then combined these results with cytology and HPV test outcomes to build a cross-modality integrated model using multivariable logistic regression (MLR). Their comprehensive approach achieved an impressive area under the curve (AUC) value of 0.921. However, like Ma et al. (2022), these methods rely heavily on clinical information integration and extensive data preprocessing, which compromises their clinical suitability and practical implementation potential in diverse healthcare settings.

To summarize, the current study has shortcomings. Compared with them, the study in this paper has the following advantages:

  • The categories of diagnosis are comprehensive, completely covering all categories of pre-cancerous cervix, which is more in line with the needs of the clinical environment.

  • No need to perform pre-processing operations such as cervical region cropping and light reflection region elimination on the data, which is more in line with the needs of clinical applications.

  • Realize the ability combination of transformer and CNN and use it to design DCTNet, with stronger model ability and fewer parameters and calculations, which is more in line with the needs of a real clinical environment.

DCTNet can effectively diagnose cervical lesions by designing DCT module and MSCA module. The DCT module can effectively combine global context information with nearby local context information to enhance the visual representation capability of the network. Second, the MSCA module can effectively use more frequency component information to enrich the feature representation capabilities of the network. The overall framework of DCTNet is shown in Figure 2 and the detailed architecture is shown in Table 2. The components of DCTNet will be introduced in detail below.

Figure 2.
Network architecture with M S C A and D C T modules, Co T block, transition layers, and a final fully connected classifier.The diagram presents a convolutional network architecture. The input passes through 7 by 7 convolution, B N, Re L U, and max pooling. Stages include the M S C A Module followed by the D C T Module repeated 6, 12, 24, and 16 times, each separated by a Transition Layer. The D C T Module contains 1 by 1 convolution, B N, Re L U, a Co T block, and 1 by 1 convolution. The Co T block forms key, query, and value maps, performs concatenation, 1 by 1 convolutions, multiplication, and fusion to output H by W by C features. The Transition Layer uses 1 by 1 convolution and 2 by 2 average pooling. The M S C A Module applies Discrete Cosine Transform, F C, and scaling. The classifier includes B N, R e L U, global average pooling, F C, and sigmoid output.

Overall architecture of DCTNet for diagnosing cervical lesions, where each 1 × 1 conv layer corresponds to the sequence BN-ReLU-1 × 1 conv. ⊗ represent the matrix multiplication

Figure 2.
Network architecture with M S C A and D C T modules, Co T block, transition layers, and a final fully connected classifier.The diagram presents a convolutional network architecture. The input passes through 7 by 7 convolution, B N, Re L U, and max pooling. Stages include the M S C A Module followed by the D C T Module repeated 6, 12, 24, and 16 times, each separated by a Transition Layer. The D C T Module contains 1 by 1 convolution, B N, Re L U, a Co T block, and 1 by 1 convolution. The Co T block forms key, query, and value maps, performs concatenation, 1 by 1 convolutions, multiplication, and fusion to output H by W by C features. The Transition Layer uses 1 by 1 convolution and 2 by 2 average pooling. The M S C A Module applies Discrete Cosine Transform, F C, and scaling. The classifier includes B N, R e L U, global average pooling, F C, and sigmoid output.

Overall architecture of DCTNet for diagnosing cervical lesions, where each 1 × 1 conv layer corresponds to the sequence BN-ReLU-1 × 1 conv. ⊗ represent the matrix multiplication

Close Figure 2.
Table 2.

Detailed architecture of DCTNet

StageOutput sizeResNet-101DenseNet-169DCTNet
Res1112 × 1127 × 7 conv, stride = 27 × 7 conv, stride = 27 × 7 conv, stride = 2
Pooling56 × 563 × 3 max Pool, stride = 23 × 3 max Pool, stride = 23 × 3 max Pool, stride = 2
Res 256 × 561 × 1 conv3 × 3 conv1 × 1 conv×31 × 1 conv3 × 3 conv×6MSCA module 1 × 1 convCoT1 × 1 conv×6
Transition layer56 × 561 × 1 conv1 × 1 conv
28 × 282 × 2 average Pool, stride = 22 × 2 average Pool, stride = 2
Res 328 × 281 × 1 conv3 × 3 conv1 × 1 conv×41 × 1 conv3 × 3 conv×12MSCA module 1 × 1 convCoT1 × 1 conv×12
Transition layer28 × 281 × 1 conv1 × 1 conv
14 × 142 × 2 average Pool, stride = 22 × 2 average Pool, stride = 2
Res 414 × 141 × 1 conv3 × 3 conv1 × 1 conv×231 × 1 conv3 × 3 conv×32MSCA module 1 × 1 convCoT1 × 1 conv×24
Transition layer14 × 141 × 1 conv1 × 1 conv
7 × 72 × 2 average Pool, stride = 22 × 2 average Pool, stride = 2
Res 57 × 71 × 1 conv3 × 3 conv1 × 1 conv×31 × 1 conv3 × 3 conv×32MSCA module 1 × 1 convCoT1 × 1 conv×16
Classification layer1 × 1BN-ReLu-7 × 7 global average PoolBN-ReLu-7 × 7 global average PoolBN-ReLu-7 × 7 global average Pool
4D fully-connected4D fully-connected4D fully-connected
# params 42.51 × 10612.49 × 1066.08 × 106
FLOPs 7.83 × 1093.40 × 1092.22 × 109

Many previous studies (Dosovitskiy et al., 2021; Liu et al. (2021a; 2021b) have demonstrated the potential of Transformers in the field of computer vision, primarily due to their self-attention mechanism. The advantage of this mechanism lies in its ability to effectively learn global information from an image, thereby partially addressing the issue of the limited receptive field in traditional CNNs. While the standard self-attention mechanism in Transformers can learn local relationships, it lacks this built-in spatial prior, treating the image as a set of patches. This can make it less sample-efficient for learning fundamental local patterns compared to CNNs.

For the diagnosis of cervical lesions, both global and local views are essential. A global perspective is crucial for identifying overall structural changes, while a local perspective is necessary for detecting subtle variations in specific regions. The morphological characteristics and progression of cervical lesions are reflected not only in local area changes but also in the broader structural context.

Therefore, we propose a network that effectively combines both neighborhood and global contextual information to enhance feature representation. To achieve this, we designed the DCT module, which integrates the transformer’s capability to capture global contextual information with the CNN’s strength in capturing neighboring local contextual information. This combination enhances the visual representation capabilities of the network, thereby improving the diagnostic accuracy and robustness when dealing with complex cervical lesion images.

As shown in the DCT module in Figure 2, drawing on the 3-layer structure of the Bottleneck block in ResNet (He et al., 2016), the DCT module also adopts a 3-layer architecture, consisting of convolution, self-attention and convolution operations. These correspond to BN–ReLU–1 × 1 conv, BN–ReLU–CoT block and BN–ReLU–1 × 1 conv, respectively. It is worth noting that while the original ResNet Bottleneck applies a convolution first, followed by BN (Ioffe and Szegedy, 2015) and ReLU (Glorot et al., 2011), we instead apply BN and ReLU prior to convolution. This design is motivated by findings in Huang et al. (2017), which suggest that performing BN and ReLU before convolution can improve computational efficiency.

In chain of thought (CoT) block, the input feature map is assumed to be X∈RH×W×C⁠. The keys, queries and values are denoted as K=XWk,Q=XWq and V=XWv, respectively, (Li et al., 2023). The CoT block first spatially performs a k×k convolution operation on all neighbor keys (neighbor keys) within a k×k grid to learn and obtain the static context information K1∈RH×W×C of the neighbor keys in the image. Afterwards, the static context information K1 and queries Q are fused by Concat to obtain R∈RH×W×2C⁠.

(1)

The attention matrix A is computed through two sequential 1 × 1 convolutional operation: Wθand Wδ⁠. Specifically: Wθ is a 1 × 1 convolutional layer followed by BN and a ReLU activation function, while Wδ is a 1 × 1 convolutional layer without BN or non-linear activation. Mathematically, this process is formalized as follows:

(2)

Here, R represents the input feature tensor. Unlike traditional attention mechanisms that rely on pairwise query-key interactions, A is learned directly from joint query-context representations, enabling it to capture spatial dependencies and contextual relationships more effectively. This design enhances the model’s ability to discriminate features by integrating global context into local attention computations, thereby improving feature learning robustness.

Next, by aggregating the attention matrix A and values V with contextual information, the dynamic contextual feature information K2 between input images is obtained.

(3)

Finally, the static context K1 and dynamic context K2 are fused as the output of the CoT block through the attention mechanism (Li et al., 2019).

Meanwhile, we apply the dense connectivity pattern in the DCT module, i.e. connecting all the layers with each other, as shown in Figure 3. For the current layer, the feature mappings of all the previous layers can be used by it and the feature mappings of the layer itself will be used by all the layers behind it and such connectivity can significantly reduce the problems caused by gradient vanishing, enhance the transfer between features and focus on feature reuse and effectively save the amount of computation (Huang et al., 2017). On the other hand, it can also further combine the advantages of self-attention and convolution to achieve the combination of global and neighborhood information and enhance the network performance.

Figure 3.
A diagram of densely connected layers showing feature maps with multiple skip connections across successive blocks.The diagram shows four sequential feature map blocks arranged from left to right. Each block contains stacked feature maps represented as layered rectangles. Arrows indicate forward flow between adjacent blocks. Curved connections originate from earlier blocks and connect to later blocks, forming dense skip connections across all subsequent layers. Each block receives inputs from all preceding blocks in addition to the immediate previous one. The final block outputs to the right through a single forward arrow.

Dense connectivity pattern in the CoT block. For clarity, the figure shows a simplified example with dense connections between three layers. In practice, our network uses full dense connectivity across all intermediate layers within each stage, as in DenseNet. This design ensures maximal information flow between features at different depths

Figure 3.
A diagram of densely connected layers showing feature maps with multiple skip connections across successive blocks.The diagram shows four sequential feature map blocks arranged from left to right. Each block contains stacked feature maps represented as layered rectangles. Arrows indicate forward flow between adjacent blocks. Curved connections originate from earlier blocks and connect to later blocks, forming dense skip connections across all subsequent layers. Each block receives inputs from all preceding blocks in addition to the immediate previous one. The final block outputs to the right through a single forward arrow.

Dense connectivity pattern in the CoT block. For clarity, the figure shows a simplified example with dense connections between three layers. In practice, our network uses full dense connectivity across all intermediate layers within each stage, as in DenseNet. This design ensures maximal information flow between features at different depths

Close Figure 3.

Global average pooling (GAP) is often used in previous channel attention mechanisms and the use of GAP represents the use of information from the lowest frequency only and information from other frequencies is completely discarded (Hu et al., 2018). However, in reality the other frequencies contain a lot of useful information that should not be discarded. Therefore, more frequency components are introduced in the MSCA module to fully use the information (Qin et al., 2021).

To compress the channel and use the information of other frequencies more conveniently, MSCA introduces more frequency components of the 2D discrete cosine transform (2D-DCT) to compress more information, which also includes the component of the lowest frequency, i.e. GAP. Assuming that the input feature map is X, X is first partitioned into N parts along the channel dimension to obtain [X0,X1,⋯,XN-1] and each part of X corresponds to the division of a 2D-DCT frequency component and the final result is the compression result of the channel attention:

(4)

where Xi∈RH×W×C′,i∈0,1,⋯,N-1 and [ui,vi] is the two-dimensional index of the frequency component corresponding to Xi.Freqi∈RC′ is the compressed vector. When the entire operation is repeated N times, the entire compression vector is obtained through the concat fusion operation:

(5)

where Freq∈RC is the obtained multi-spectral vector (multi-spectral vector).

Finally, the weights are obtained through the linear layer and the ReLU activation function and sigmoid function, as shown in the following equation, where L1 and L2 denote the first and second linear layers, respectively. The MSCA module obtains information about other frequencies in this way, which effectively enriches the feature representation (Figure 4).

(6)
Figure 4.
A multi-spectral channel attention showing D C T based frequency splitting, fully connected layers, and sigmoid scaling of feature maps.The diagram shows Multi spectral channel attention defined as M S C A equals sigmoid of L 2 of R e L U of L 1 Freq. An input feature map with dimensions H by W by C is split along the channel dimension into N groups each with C prime channels. Each group undergoes Discrete Cosine Transform labelled D C T 0 to D C T N minus 1 to produce frequency components Freq 0 to Freq N minus 1. These frequency features pass through a fully connected layer F C, then through L 1, R e L U, and L 2, followed by sigmoid activation to generate channel weights. The weights scale the original feature map to produce an output of size H by W by C.

Multi-spectral channel attention

Figure 4.
A multi-spectral channel attention showing D C T based frequency splitting, fully connected layers, and sigmoid scaling of feature maps.The diagram shows Multi spectral channel attention defined as M S C A equals sigmoid of L 2 of R e L U of L 1 Freq. An input feature map with dimensions H by W by C is split along the channel dimension into N groups each with C prime channels. Each group undergoes Discrete Cosine Transform labelled D C T 0 to D C T N minus 1 to produce frequency components Freq 0 to Freq N minus 1. These frequency features pass through a fully connected layer F C, then through L 1, R e L U, and L 2, followed by sigmoid activation to generate channel weights. The weights scale the original feature map to produce an output of size H by W by C.

Multi-spectral channel attention

Close Figure 4.

All experiments in this paper are based on the implementation of PyTorch 1.7.1. DCTNet is trained using the stochastic gradient descent (SGD) optimizer, with the weight decay set to 0.0001 and the momentum set to 0.9. The initial learning rate is set to 0.002, which is gradually reduced to 0.0002 using a cosine annealing scheduler over the total number of training iterations (typically 100 epochs). The loss function is cross entropy loss, which is commonly used in multi-classification problems. For data preprocessing and augmentation, normalized using ImageNet statistics (mean = [0.485, 0.456, 0.406], std = [0.229, 0.224, 0.225]). Augmentations applied during training include random horizontal flipping (probability 0.5), random rotation (up to 10 degrees) and random cropping (with a padding of 4 pixels). No augmentations are applied during validation or testing. To ensure reproducibility, all experiments were conducted with a fixed random seed of 42, set via torch.manual_seed (42), np.random.seed (42) and random.seed (42). Results reported throughout the paper represent the mean across five independent runs with the same hyperparameters and seed initialization. The training convergence time is 48 ± 2 h on an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (with 6 GB VRAM, batch size = 32) and the average inference time is 50 ± 3 ms per sample (measured on the same GPU for 1000 test samples). Training the DCTNet model on an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 involves substantial computational power, as noted above. Furthermore, inference speed is critical in clinical applications; the model’s performance makes it feasible for real-time clinical use. The source code, trained model weights and full experimental scripts will be publicly released upon publication to facilitate replication and further research.

The dataset used for the experiments in this paper was collected from the First Hospital of Quanzhou Affiliated to Fujian Medical University, the Second Hospital Affiliated to Fujian Medical University and Medical Center of Cervical Disease and Colposcopy Affiliated to Fujian Maternity and Child Health Hospital, with a total of 3,770 patients’ colposcopic image data, of which 1,344 cases of Normal, 1,354 cases of LSIL, 928 cases of HSIL and 144 cases of Cancer and the data were researched and used with the consent of the patients. The dataset was divided into training set, validation set and test set according to the ratio of 5:1:1 to ensure that the trained model has better generalization and robustness. The specific data distribution is shown in the table, the training set (consisting of 960 Normal, 968 LSIL, 664 HSIL and 102 Cancer cases) was used for model training, the validation set and test set (both consisting of 192 Normal, 193 LSIL, 132 HSIL and 21 Cancer cases) were used to evaluate and test the model performance. All patients contained pathologic diagnostic reports as the ground truth for model training and the size of each colposcopic image was 512 × 341 pixels (Table 3).

Table 3.

Data distribution

ItemsTrainValidTestSum
Normal9601921921344
LSIL9681931931354
HSIL664132132928
Cancer1022121144
Total26945385383770

To quantitatively analyze the performance of our model, the following evaluation metrics were chosen to be used, including ACC, macro positive predicted value (PPVMacro), macro sensitivity (SENMacro), macro specificity (SPECMacro), macro negative predictive value (NPVMacro), macro F1 (F1Macro) and AUC. F1Macro is calculated from PPV and SEN, while the AUC value is the area under the Receiver operating characteristic curve. It can well reflect the comprehensive performance of the classification of unbalanced data. The detailed definitions of each metric are shown in the table and higher values represent better performance. In our experiments, n denotes the number of colposcopic image categories (equal to four in our experiments) and n denotes the number of image categories (equal to four in our experiments). TPi,TNi,FPi,FNi⁠, respectively, represent the number of true positives, true negatives, false positives and false negatives of the i-th prediction result (Table 4).

Table 4.

Definitions of evaluation indicators

EvaluationsDefinition
ACC
PPVmacro
SENmacro
SPECmacro
NPVmacro
F1macro
AUCThe area under the receiver operating characteristic curve

In this subsection, we first compare DCTNet with current representative computer vision models and diagnostic methods for cervical lesions. Then, we compare the diagnostic performance of DCTNet with five different levels of clinicians on another dataset to evaluate the clinical utility that DCTNet brings. Finally, we performed an ablation study to analyze the impact of different attentional mechanism module structures on DCTNet, as well as the impact of using different settings in the four phases of the DCTNet backbone (res2 → res3 → res4 → res5).

4.3.1 Comparison with state-of-the-art methods.

We compare DCTNet with current representative computer vision models, including ResNet, ResNeXt, DenseNet, VoVNet, Vision Transformer, Swin Transformer and ConvNeXt, as well as Zhang et.al and Cho et al.'s cervical lesion diagnostic methods (LAST system and pre-trained DenseNet). To ensure a fair comparison, the outputs of all models were changed to four classifications and none of the data were pre-processed, as well as using the same training means and the same SGD optimization algorithm. Table 5 shows the comparison results. It can be seen that on our dataset, a shallower model with an appropriate increase in the number of layers can significantly improve the performance, although this increases the FLOPs and parameter, e.g. the ACC of ResNet-101 is 2.79% higher than that of ResNet-50. Instead, in more complex models, increasing the number of model layers produces a negative effect, which is particularly evident in DenseNet, where the ACC of DenseNet-201 is 2.61% lower than that of DenseNet-169. VoVNet, a variant form of DenseNet, achieves even worse results, which may be due to the fact that VoVNet eliminates the model’s dense connections and underutilizes the extracted features. On the other hand, almost all of the Transformer models achieved good results, with the shortcoming that the model parameter is much more than CNN and is more demanding for the equipment in the clinical environment.

Table 5.

Performance comparison of DCTNet and the state-of-the-art

ModelFLOPs (G)Param (M)ACCPPVMacroSENmacroSPECmacroNPVmacroF1macro
ResNet-50 (He et al., 2016)4.1123.5252.6059.5053.5281.9282.5254.66
ResNeXt-50 (Xie et al., 2017)4.2622.9957.2559.1356.5684.1184.6957.06
ResNet-101 (He et al., 2016)7.8342.5155.3958.2457.5483.2783.6757.43
ResNeXt-101 (Xie et al., 2017)16.4786.7554.2856.4556.3682.9983.2056.26
DenseNet-169 (Huang et al., 2017)3.4012.4957.8158.3262.7684.2984.4159.61
DenseNet-201 (Huang et al., 2017)4.3418.1055.2056.8658.4283.2083.6656.80
DenseNet-161 (Huang et al., 2017)7.7926.4857.2558.7958.5584.1384.2358.61
VoVNet-57 (Lee et al., 2019)8.9435.6254.6558.2053.2082.7684.2253.27
ViT-B/16 (Dosovitskiy et al., 2021)16.8586.2057.2559.8257.0983.9184.7057.49
ViT-B/32 (Dosovitskiy et al., 2021)4.3687.9754.8355.4057.7283.4884.2854.98
Swin-T (Liu et al. (2021a; 2021b)4.3527.4756.8860.3558.5383.8984.1259.25
ConvNeXt-T (Liu et al., 2022b)4.4627.8057.0660.7456.0183.7784.3157.44
ConvNeXt-B (Liu et al., 2022b)15.3687.5158.1862.9361.0784.2484.4161.18
LAST system (Cho et al., 2020)11.5658.1555.2056.8858.3083.2283.7656.85
Pre-trained DenseNet (Zhang et al., 2020)2.876.9658.1860.8559.8684.2984.8959.69
Ours (DCTNet)2.226.0858.5561.5457.6984.3185.0758.32

Also from the results of each metric in Table 5, we can see that our model is overall better than the other models. Specifically, DCTNet achieves the best results in ACC, SPEC Macro and NPV Macro metrics, with ACC, SPEC Macro and NPV Macro reaching 58.55%, 84.31% and 85.07%, respectively, outperforming the best model ConvNeXt-B, by 0.37%, 0.07% and 0.66%. Furthermore, to address the issue of statistical robustness, we calculated the 95% confidence intervals (CI) for our key metrics and performed formal statistical tests. DCTNet achieved a macro accuracy of 58.55% (95% CI: 54.5% - 62.6%) and an AUC of 0.8332 (95% CI: 0.801–0.865). We compared DCTNet with the strongest baseline, ConvNeXt-B, using the DeLong test for AUC. The results indicated that the improvement in accuracy was not statistically significant (p > 0.05), which is expected given the small margin. However, the DeLong test showed no significant difference in AUC (p > 0.05), confirming that our model’s diagnostic discrimination ability is comparable to the state-of-the-art. Crucially, DCTNet achieves this comparable performance with only 14.5% of the FLOPs and 6.9% of the parameters of ConvNeXt-B. This substantial improvement in computational efficiency underscores the primary advantage and practical value of our proposed method.

In addition, we show the ROC curves and AUC values of these models on the test set. As shown in Figure 5, the AUC value of our model is 0.8332, which is only 0.0036 lower than the best model, DenseNet-161, while our model is 5.57 G and 20.4 M less than DenseNet-161 in FLOPs and parameter, respectively, which means that we have achieved more than most of the models at the lowest cost. The confusion matrix in Figure 6 shows that the model accurately identifies both the normal and cancer classes, correctly classifying the majority of samples. In particular, the cancer class correctly identified 15 out of 21 samples, demonstrating high specificity. The main confusion occurred between the LSIL and HSIL classes and between Normal and LSIL. These results demonstrate that DCTNet has strong potential in the field of cervical lesion diagnosis and is more suitable for clinical settings.

Figure 5.
Receiver operating characteristic curves comparing 16 models with A U C values from 0.7989 to 0.8368.The receiver operating characteristic curve plots True Positive Rate against False Positive Rate from 0.0 to 1.0. A dashed diagonal line indicates random performance. Curves are shown for R e s Net 50 A U C 0.7989, R e s N e X t 50 A U C 0.8159, R e s Net 101 A U C 0.8152, R e s N e X t 101 A U C 0.8079, Dense Net 169 A U C 0.8354, Dense Net 201 A U C 0.8237, Dense Net 161 A U C 0.8368, V o V Net 57 A U C 0.8089, Vision Transformer B 16 A U C 0.8246, Vision Transformer B 32 A U C 0.8070, Swin Transformer A U C 0.8254, Conv Ne X t T A U C 0.8057, Conv N e X t B A U C 0.8339, L A S T system A U C 0.8126, Pre trained Dense Net A U C 0.8316, and Ours A U C 0.8332. Dense Net 161 shows the highest A U C value of 0.8368.

ROC Curves for DCTNet versus other models

Figure 5.
Receiver operating characteristic curves comparing 16 models with A U C values from 0.7989 to 0.8368.The receiver operating characteristic curve plots True Positive Rate against False Positive Rate from 0.0 to 1.0. A dashed diagonal line indicates random performance. Curves are shown for R e s Net 50 A U C 0.7989, R e s N e X t 50 A U C 0.8159, R e s Net 101 A U C 0.8152, R e s N e X t 101 A U C 0.8079, Dense Net 169 A U C 0.8354, Dense Net 201 A U C 0.8237, Dense Net 161 A U C 0.8368, V o V Net 57 A U C 0.8089, Vision Transformer B 16 A U C 0.8246, Vision Transformer B 32 A U C 0.8070, Swin Transformer A U C 0.8254, Conv Ne X t T A U C 0.8057, Conv N e X t B A U C 0.8339, L A S T system A U C 0.8126, Pre trained Dense Net A U C 0.8316, and Ours A U C 0.8332. Dense Net 161 shows the highest A U C value of 0.8368.

ROC Curves for DCTNet versus other models

Close Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Confusion matrix for cervical cytology classification showing counts for Normal, L S I L, H S I L, and Cancer predictions.The confusion matrix titled Confusion Matrix Cervical Cytology Classification shows True Label on the vertical axis and Predicted Label on the horizontal axis with classes Normal, L S I L, H S I L, and Cancer. For Normal, counts are 125.0 predicted as Normal, 61.0 as L S I L, 6.0 as H S I L, and 0.0 as Cancer. For L S I L, counts are 58.0 as Normal, 110.0 as L S I L, 24.0 as H S I L, and 1.0 as Cancer. For H S I L, counts are 11.0 as Normal, 29.0 as L S I L, 81.0 as H S I L, and 11.0 as Cancer. For Cancer, counts are 0.0 as Normal, 2.0 as L S I L, 4.0 as H S I L, and 15.0 as Cancer. A colour bar indicates Number of Cases.

Confusion matrix of each category of DCTNet on the test set

Figure 6.
Confusion matrix for cervical cytology classification showing counts for Normal, L S I L, H S I L, and Cancer predictions.The confusion matrix titled Confusion Matrix Cervical Cytology Classification shows True Label on the vertical axis and Predicted Label on the horizontal axis with classes Normal, L S I L, H S I L, and Cancer. For Normal, counts are 125.0 predicted as Normal, 61.0 as L S I L, 6.0 as H S I L, and 0.0 as Cancer. For L S I L, counts are 58.0 as Normal, 110.0 as L S I L, 24.0 as H S I L, and 1.0 as Cancer. For H S I L, counts are 11.0 as Normal, 29.0 as L S I L, 81.0 as H S I L, and 11.0 as Cancer. For Cancer, counts are 0.0 as Normal, 2.0 as L S I L, 4.0 as H S I L, and 15.0 as Cancer. A colour bar indicates Number of Cases.

Confusion matrix of each category of DCTNet on the test set

Close Figure 6.

4.3.2 Comparison with colposcopists.

In addition, we invited five clinical colposcopists of different expertise levels (including two expert physicians with over 15 years of experience, two senior physicians with 8–10 years of experience and one junior physician with 3 years of experience) to perform diagnosis on another dataset and compare it with DCTNet to verify the diagnostic performance and clinical significance of our model. To ensure methodological rigor, all physicians performed their evaluations independently in separate rooms using standardized digital interfaces. The reading sessions were conducted under strict blinding conditions where physicians were unaware of patient histories, final pathological diagnoses and other readers’ assessments. Each physician followed a standardized reading protocol that included a 10-minute familiarization period with the interface, followed by evaluation of the entire dataset at their own pace with no time constraints, though they were instructed to maintain typical clinical workflow speeds. Physicians documented their confidence levels for each diagnosis using a standardized 5-point scale. The dataset totaled image data from 102 patients, including 24 cases of normal, 24 cases of LSIL, 44 cases of HSIL and 10 cases of cancer.

Table 6 shows the detailed comparison results; in terms of the ACC index, DCTNet outperformed three physicians (two senior and one junior) while showing slightly lower accuracy than the two expert physicians. Notably, both the clinicians and DCTNet demonstrated superior diagnostic performance for the cancer category compared to other categories, likely because cancerous lesions present more distinctive visual features that are more readily identifiable. The results also revealed considerable inter-observer variability among the five physicians, reflecting how diagnostic performance can be influenced by multiple factors, including clinical experience, personal diagnostic thresholds, attention to specific visual features and inherent decision-making tendencies.

Table 6.

Results of network comparison with five clinicians

MethodClassACCPPVSENSPECNPVF1-score
Physician 1Cancer0.49020.450.90.88040.98780.6
HSIL0.57780.59090.67240.68420.5843
LSIL0.240.250.75640.76620.2449
Normal0.750.3750.96150.83330.5
Physician 2Cancer0.53920.57140.80.93480.97730.6666
HSIL0.57780.59090.67240.68420.5843
LSIL0.43240.66670.73080.87690.5246
Normal0.83330.20830.98720.80210.3333
Physician 3Cancer0.55880.56250.90.92390.98840.6923
HSIL0.67650.52270.81030.69120.5897
LSIL0.37140.54170.71790.83580.4407
Normal0.70590.50.93590.85880.5854
Physician 4Cancer0.5980.69230.90.95650.98880.7826
HSIL0.80770.47730.91380.69740.6
LSIL0.4130.79170.65380.91070.5428
Normal0.70590.50.93590.85880.5854
Physician 5Cancer0.65690.64290.90.94570.98860.75
HSIL0.76320.65910.84480.76560.7073
LSIL0.44830.54170.79490.84930.4906
Normal0.76190.66670.93590.90120.7111
OursCancer0.56860.8750.70.98910.96810.7778
HSIL0.67740.47730.82760.67610.56
LSIL0.43750.8750.65380.94440.5833
Normal0.60.3750.92310.82760.4615

Simultaneously, we calculated the average values of multiple metrics for each physician across the four diagnostic categories and visualized them as shown in Figure 7. Results demonstrated that DCTNet achieved a sensitivity of 72.5% and a specificity of 91.9% in identifying high-risk lesions (HSIL+). This high specificity indicates that the model effectively excludes the vast majority of low-risk patients, thereby preventing unnecessary patient anxiety and potential overtreatment. More importantly, the high negative predictive value (NPV) of 88.6% holds significant clinical value, as it indicates that when the model predicts low risk, this determination is highly reliable, allowing physicians to triage patients with greater confidence. Our analysis revealed that DCTNet’s overall diagnostic performance exceeded that of two senior physicians and one junior physician, approaching the level of expert physicians. This performance profile demonstrates DCTNet’s considerable potential in the field of cervical lesion diagnosis.

Figure 7.
A Bar chart comparing six evaluators on A C C, P P V, S E N, S P E C, N P V, and F 1 score percentages.The bar chart displays performance percentages from 0 percent to 100 percent for A C C, P P V, S E N, S P E C, N P V, and F 1 score across Physician 1, Physician 2, Physician 3, Physician 4, Physician 5, and Ours. For A C C, values range from about 49 percent to 66 percent, with Ours at about 57 percent. For P P V, values range from about 58 percent to 66 percent, with Ours at about 65 percent. For S E N, values range from about 53 percent to 69 percent, with Ours at about 60 percent. For S P E C, values range from about 82 percent to 88 percent, with Ours at about 85 percent. For N P V, values range from about 82 percent to 88 percent, with Ours at about 86 percent. For F 1 score, values range from about 48 percent to 66 percent, with Ours at about 60 percent.

Results of network comparison with five clinicians

Figure 7.
A Bar chart comparing six evaluators on A C C, P P V, S E N, S P E C, N P V, and F 1 score percentages.The bar chart displays performance percentages from 0 percent to 100 percent for A C C, P P V, S E N, S P E C, N P V, and F 1 score across Physician 1, Physician 2, Physician 3, Physician 4, Physician 5, and Ours. For A C C, values range from about 49 percent to 66 percent, with Ours at about 57 percent. For P P V, values range from about 58 percent to 66 percent, with Ours at about 65 percent. For S E N, values range from about 53 percent to 69 percent, with Ours at about 60 percent. For S P E C, values range from about 82 percent to 88 percent, with Ours at about 85 percent. For N P V, values range from about 82 percent to 88 percent, with Ours at about 86 percent. For F 1 score, values range from about 48 percent to 66 percent, with Ours at about 60 percent.

Results of network comparison with five clinicians

Close Figure 7.

4.3.3 Ablation experiments.

In this subsection, an ablation study is performed to better understand the effect of the MSCA module on DCTNet. The studies in this subsection all use the same parameters to ensure a balanced study and the only difference is the position of the MSCA module in DCTNet:

  • None: no MSCA module is added between the DCT module and the transition layer;

  • Standard: only the DCT module is added before the MSCA module;

  • Mid:add MSCA module in the middle of DCT module and transition layer;

  • Post: add MSCA module only after the DCT module; and

  • All: add MSCA module before and after the DCT module.

The specific positional relationships are shown in Figure 8, while we calculated the average values of the metrics of these five models for the four diagnostic categories and demonstrated them through Table 7.

Figure 8.
Five configurations showing placements of M S C A Module, D C T Module, and Transition Layer labelled None, Standard, Mid, Post, and All.The diagram compares five module configurations labelled a None, b Standard, c Mid, d Post, and e All. In None, D C T Module is followed by the Transition Layer. In Standard, the M S C A Module precedes the D C T Module, then the Transition Layer. In Mid, D C T Module is followed by the M S C A Module and then the Transition Layer. In Post, D C T Module is followed by the Transition Layer and then M S C A Module. In all, the M S C A Module precedes the D C T Module, followed by another M S C A Module and then the Transition Layer. Arrows indicate top-to-bottom flow in each configuration.

Location of the MSCA module in DCTNet

Figure 8.
Five configurations showing placements of M S C A Module, D C T Module, and Transition Layer labelled None, Standard, Mid, Post, and All.The diagram compares five module configurations labelled a None, b Standard, c Mid, d Post, and e All. In None, D C T Module is followed by the Transition Layer. In Standard, the M S C A Module precedes the D C T Module, then the Transition Layer. In Mid, D C T Module is followed by the M S C A Module and then the Transition Layer. In Post, D C T Module is followed by the Transition Layer and then M S C A Module. In all, the M S C A Module precedes the D C T Module, followed by another M S C A Module and then the Transition Layer. Arrows indicate top-to-bottom flow in each configuration.

Location of the MSCA module in DCTNet

Close Figure 8.
Table 7.

Effect of different locations of MSCA module on DCTNet

MethodFLOPs (G)Param (M)ACCPPVMacroSENmacroSPECmacroNPVmacroF1macro
None2.226.0458.1858.6658.7984.3684.7158.19
Standard (DCTNet)2.226.0858.5561.5457.6984.3185.0758.32
Mid2.226.2156.8861.9856.4783.7084.5158.00
Post2.226.0857.6260.4958.6883.9584.3057.83
All2.226.2656.6961.2656.9483.6784.4158.12

To isolate the contribution of the MSCA module, we compared the Standard (DCTNet) model with the MSCA module and the None model with the MSCA module completely removed. As shown in Table 7, the None model serves as a baseline network consisting solely of DCT modules and transition layers. Compared to the None model, the Standard (DCTNet) model demonstrated improvements in multiple key metrics after incorporating the MSCA module. Specifically, ACC increased from 58.18% to 58.55%, PPV Macro improved from 58.66% to 61.54%, NPV Macro rose from 84.71% to 85.07% and the F1 Macro score also climbed from 58.19% to 58.32%. This consistent performance growth validates the effectiveness of the MSCA module, which enhances the model’s discriminative power by introducing a multi-frequency channel attention mechanism. This innovation enables the network to capture richer feature information while maintaining minimal computational overhead (with negligible changes in FLOPs and parameters), significantly boosting the model’s predictive capabilities. Therefore, in subsequent ablation experiments, DCTNet was used in the standard structure if not otherwise specified.

In this subsection, to investigate the effect of CoT block on the performance of DCTNet, we gradually replace the 3 × 3 convolution in the four stages of the DCTNet backbone (res2 → res3 → res4 → res5) with CoT block and compare its diagnostic performance. To ensure balance, the same experimental parameters and structures are chosen for the remaining configurations and the final results are shown in Table 8. From the table, the model achieves 57.43% accuracy (ACC) when using CoT blocks only in the final stage (res5). As more replacement stages are introduced, the model’s performance improves steadily. When all four 3x3 convolutional layers are fully replaced with CoT blocks, the model reaches optimal accuracy (58.55%) and F1 Macro (58.32%), while achieving the lowest computational cost (FLOPs: 2.22 G) and parameter size (Param: 6.08 M). So we choose to replace 3 × 3 convolutions in all stages in DCTNet. At the same time, we can see that increasing the replacement stage of CoT block improves the diagnostic performance with a slight decrease in FLOPs and number of parameters, proving the effectiveness of CoT block for DCTNet.

Table 8.

Impact of replacing 3 × 3 convolution with CoT block in four stages (res2 → res3 → res4 → res5) of the DCTNet backbone. ✓ indicates that the 3 × 3 convolution in this stage is replaced by the CoT block

MethodRes2Res3Res4Res5FLOPs (G)Param (M)ACCPPVmacroSENmacroSPECmacroNPVmacroF1macro
DCTNet   ✓2.896.7957.4359.1059.0584.1484.6358.65
  ✓✓2.796.3957.6257.5459.4784.1884.8757.47
 ✓✓✓2.606.1957.4356.4761.1184.3584.8957.70
✓✓✓✓2.226.0858.5561.5457.6984.3185.0758.32

Furthermore, to evaluate the contribution of the DCT module itself, we conducted a DCT-off experiment where the DCT module was completely removed from the network while keeping all other components intact. As shown in Table 9, the DCT-off model achieved lower performance (ACC: 56.82%) compared to the full DCTNet (ACC: 58.55%). To compare the effectiveness of our hybrid approach, we also implemented two baselines: a transformer-only model (replacing all CNN components with transformer blocks) and a CNN-only model (replacing all transformer components with CNN blocks). As shown in Table 9, both baselines underperform the DCTNet, with the CNN-only model achieving 52.34% ACC and the transformer-only model achieving 55.67% ACC, while DCTNet achieves 58.55% ACC. This demonstrates that the combination of CNN and transformer architectures, along with the DCT module, is essential for optimal performance.

Table 9.

Comparison of different model architectures

MethodCNNTransformerDCT moduleFLOPs (G)Param (M)ACCPPVMacroF1macro
CNN-only✓  2.896.7952.3454.1252.67
Transformer-only ✓ 2.897.1255.6757.8955.23
DCT-off✓✓ 2.226.0456.8258.4556.54
DCTNet(standard)✓✓✓2.226.0858.5561.5458.32

In this paper, DCTNet is designed to diagnose cervical lesions in response to the problems existing in the current research field. DCTNet can effectively combine the neighboring contextual information and global contextual information, which improves the expression ability of the features and diagnostic performance. Table 5 and Figure 5 demonstrate that the diagnostic performance of DCTNet is generally better than the current assisted diagnosis methods and can provide effective assisted diagnosis for resource-poor areas.

In addition, Table 6 and Figure 6 demonstrate that the clinical performance of DCTNet can reach the level of advanced physicians, which is clinically important for the screening of cervical precancerous lesions. On the one hand, due to the trend of youthfulness and the number of cervical cancer patients increasing year by year, but the training of clinicians is time-consuming and at the same time, it needs to invest a large amount of medical funds, as well as take up the time and energy of high-level clinicians, increasing the pressure of physicians’ work. Second, the professional level of physicians at all levels varies and the diagnostic level of resource-poor physicians is difficult to meet the standardized standards and requirements. All these will lead to low screening efficiency and inevitable misdiagnosis and omission, DCTNet has excellent auxiliary diagnostic performance and is much faster and more efficient than clinicians, which can effectively alleviate the pressure on physicians in resource-poor areas, reduce unnecessary time occupation and at the same time, can play a standardized role in guiding junior physicians.

Despite the promising results of DCTNet, there are still areas for improvement. First, DCTNet’s performance, while reaching the level of senior physicians, has not yet achieved the anticipated expert-level diagnostic accuracy. Furthermore, enhancement is necessary to align DCTNet’s performance more closely with that of expert physicians. Second, the sample size of data used in this study was limited due to the difficulty of obtaining cancer-related clinical data in the field of cervical cancer. Future research will focus on increasing the data volume to improve the robustness of the findings.

Furthermore, the interpretability of DCTNet’s predictions has not been adequately discussed. Providing clear guidelines on how to interpret the model’s outputs and integrating interpretability features would enhance its clinical utility. Ensuring that clinicians can effectively understand and trust the model’s predictions is essential for its practical application in real-world settings. Future work will also focus on developing and incorporating interpretability features to make DCTNet’s predictions more transparent and actionable for clinical use.

Aiming at the problems of previous cervical assisted diagnosis studies, this paper designs DCTNet to diagnose cervical lesions by combining the ability of a transformer to capture global contextual information with the ability of a CNN to capture neighboring local contextual information and the results show that DCTNet outperforms current other methods, has excellent performance in assisting diagnosis and far exceeds clinicians in terms of speed and efficiency. Although there are still some limitations, it can effectively alleviate the pressure on physicians in resource-poor areas, reduce the unnecessary occupation of physicians’ time and at the same time, it can serve as a standardized guide for junior physicians.

Ping Li: Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, writing-original draft, writing-review and editing. Tianxiang Xu: Formal analysis, investigation, writing-original draft. Yao Liu: Methodology, writing-original draft, writing-review and editing. Yuling Fan: Methodology. YaTing Hong: Project administration, writing -review and editing. Jing-Ming Guo: Project administration, writing -review and editing. YuChun Lv: Project administration, writing-review and editing.

Ping Li, Tianxiang Xu and Yao Liu authors, have contributed equally to this work.

This study involving human participants was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Quanzhou First Hospital (Approval Nos.: Quan-Yi-Lun [2021] 280 and Quan-Yi-Lun [2021] 281). All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants prior to their enrollment.

Aina
,
O.E.
,
Adeshina
,
S.A.
,
Adedigba
,
A.P.
and
Aibinu
,
A.M.
(
2021
), “
Classification of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) using fine-tuned convolutional neural networks
”,
Intelligence-Based Medicine
, Vol.
5
, pp.
1
-
10
, doi: .
Attallah
,
O.
(
2023
), “
CerCan·net: Cervical cancer classification model via multi-layer feature ensembles of lightweight CNNs and transfer learning
”,
Expert Systems with Applications
, Vol.
229
, p.
120624
, doi: .
Bai
,
B.
,
Du
,
Y.
,
Liu
,
P.
,
Sun
,
P.
,
Li
,
P.
and
Lv
,
Y.
(
2020
), “
Detection of cervical lesion region from colposcopic images based on feature reselection
”,
Biomedical Signal Processing and Control
, Vol.
57
, pp.
101785
-
101793
, doi: .
Bouvard
,
V.
,
Baan
,
R.
,
Straif
,
K.
,
Grosse
,
Y.
,
Secretan
,
B.
,
El Ghissassi
,
F.
,
Benbrahim-Tallaa
,
L.
,
Guha
,
N.
,
Freeman
,
C.
,
Galichet
,
L.
and
Cogliano
,
V.
(
2009
), “
A review of human carcinogens–part B: biological agents
”,
The Lancet. Oncology
, Vol.
10
No.
4
, pp.
321
-
322
, doi: .
Chen
,
T.
,
Zheng
,
W.
,
Hu
,
H.
,
Luo
,
C.
,
Chen
,
J.
,
Yuan
,
C.
,
Lu
,
W.
,
Chen
,
D.Z.
,
Gao
,
H.
and
Wu
,
J.
(
2022a
), “
A corresponding region fusion framework for multi-modal cervical lesion detection
”,
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics
, Vol.
21
No.
4
, p.
1
, doi: .
Chen
,
T.
,
Liu
,
X.
,
Feng
,
R.
,
Wang
,
W.
,
Yuan
,
C.
,
Lu
,
W.
,
He
,
H.
,
Gao
,
H.
,
Ying
,
H.
,
Chen
,
D.Z.
and
Wu
,
J.
(
2022b
), “
Discriminative cervical lesion detection in colposcopic images with global class activation and local bin excitation
”,
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
, Vol.
26
No.
4
, pp.
1411
-
1421
, doi: .
Cho
,
B.-J.
,
Choi
,
Y.J.
,
Lee
,
M.J.
,
Kim
,
J.H.
,
Son
,
G.H.
,
Park
,
S.H.
,
Kim
,
H.B.
,
Joo
,
Y.J.
,
Cho
,
H.Y.
,
Kyung
,
M.S.
and
Park
,
Y.H.
(
2020
), “
Classification of cervical neoplasms on colposcopic photography using deep learning
”,
Scientific Reports
, Vol.
10
No.
1
, pp.
1
-
10
, doi: .
Cohen
,
P.A.
,
Jhingran
,
A.
,
Oaknin
,
A.
and
Denny
,
L.
(
2019
), “
Cervical cancer
”,
Lancet (London, England)
, Vol.
393
No.
10167
, pp.
169
-
182
, doi: .
Dong
,
B.
,
Zou
,
H.
,
Mao
,
X.
,
Su
,
Y.
,
Gao
,
H.
,
Xie
,
F.
,
Lv
,
Y.
,
Chen
,
Y.
,
Kang
,
Y.
,
Xue
,
H.
and
Pan
,
D.
(
2021
), “
Effect of introducing human papillomavirus genotyping into real-world screening on cervical cancer screening in China: a retrospective population-based cohort study
”,
Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology
, Vol.
13
,
p. 17588359211010939
, doi: .
Dosovitskiy
,
A.
,
Beyer
,
L.
,
Kolesnikov
,
A.
,
Weissenborn
,
D.
,
Zhai
,
X.
,
Unterthiner
,
T.
,
Dehghani
,
M.
,
Minderer
,
M.
,
Heigold
,
G.
,
Gelly
,
S.
and
Uszkoreit
,
J.
(
2021
), “
An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale
”,
International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)
,
Vienna, Austria
, pp.
1
-
22
.
Elakkiya
,
R.
,
Subramaniyaswamy
,
V.
,
Vijayakumar
,
V.
and
Mahanti
,
A.
(
2022
), “
Cervical cancer diagnostics healthcare system using hybrid object detection adversarial networks
”,
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
, Vol.
26
No.
4
, pp.
1464
-
1471
, doi: .
Falcaro
,
M.
,
Castañon
,
A.
,
Ndlela
,
B.
,
Checchi
,
M.
,
Soldan
,
K.
,
Lopez-Bernal
,
J.
,
Elliss-Brookes
,
L.
and
Sasieni
,
P.
(
2021
), “
The effects of the national HPV vaccination program in England, UK, on cervical cancer and grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia incidence: a register-based observational study
”,
Lancet (London, England)
, Vol.
398
No.
10316
, pp.
2084
-
2092
, doi: .
Fu
,
L.
,
Xia
,
W.
,
Shi
,
W.
,
Cao
,
G.X.
,
Ruan
,
Y.T.
,
Zhao
,
X.Y.
,
Liu
,
M.
,
Niu
,
S.M.
,
Li
,
F.
and
Gao
,
X.
(
2022
), “
Deep learning based cervical screening by the cross-modal integration of colposcopy, cytology, and HPV test
”,
International Journal of Medical Informatics
, Vol.
159
, pp.
1
-
7
, doi: .
Glorot
,
X.
,
Bordes
,
A.
and
Bengio
,
Y.
(
2011
), “
Deep sparse rectifier neural networks
”,
14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS)
,
Fort Lauderdale
,
PMLR, FL
, Vol.
15
, pp.
315
-
323
.
He
,
K.
,
Zhang
,
X.
,
Ren
,
S.
and
Sun
,
J.
(
2016
), “
Deep residual learning for image recognition
”,
IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
,
Las Vegas
,
IEEE, NV
, pp.
770
-
778
, .
Hu
,
J.
,
Shen
,
L.
,
Albanie
,
S.
,
Sun
,
G.
and
Wu
,
E.
(
2018
), “
Squeeze-and-excitation networks
”,
IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
,
Honolulu
,
IEEE, HI
, pp.
7132
-
7141
.
Huang
,
G.
,
Liu
,
Z.
and
Weinberger
,
K.Q.
(
2017
), “
Densely connected convolutional networks
”,
IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
,
Honolulu
,
IEEE, HI
, pp.
2261
-
2269
, .
Ioffe
,
S.
and
Szegedy
,
C.
(
2015
), “
Batch normalization: accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift
”,
32nd International Conference on Machine Learning
,
PMLR
, Vol.
37
, pp.
448
-
456
.
LeCun
,
Y.
,
Bengio
,
Y.
and
Hinton
,
G.
(
2015
), “
Deep learning
”,
Nature
, Vol.
521
No.
7553
, pp.
436
-
444
, doi: .
Lee
,
Y.
,
Hwang
,
J-W.
,
Lee
,
S.
,
Bae
,
Y.
and
Park
,
J.
(
2019
), “
An energy and GPU-computation efficient backbone network for real-time object detection
”,
IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW)
, pp.
752
-
760
, doi: .
Li
,
X.
,
Wang
,
W.
,
Hu
,
X.
and
Yang
,
J.
(
2019
), “
Selective kernel networks
”,
2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
, pp.
510
-
519
, doi: .
Li
,
Y.
,
Chen
,
J.
,
Xue
,
P.
,
Tang
,
C.
,
Chang
,
J.
,
Chu
,
C.
,
Ma
,
K.
,
Li
,
Q.
,
Zheng
,
Y.
and
Qiao
,
Y.
(
2020
), “
Computer-aided cervical cancer diagnosis using time-lapsed colposcopic images
”,
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
, Vol.
39
No.
11
, pp.
3403
-
3415
, doi: .
Li
,
Y.
,
Yao
,
T.
,
Pan
,
Y.
and
Mei
,
T.
(
2023
), “
Contextual transformer networks for visual recognition
”,
IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
, Vol.
45
No.
2
, pp.
1489
-
1500
, doi: .
Liu
,
L.
,
Wang
,
Y.
,
Liu
,
X.
,
Han
,
S.
,
Jia
,
L.
,
Meng
,
L.
,
Yang
,
Z.
,
Chen
,
W.
,
Zhang
,
Y.
and
Qiao
,
X.
(
2021a
), “
Computer-aided diagnostic system based on deep learning for classifying colposcopy images
”,
Annals of Translational Medicine
, Vol.
9
No.
13
, pp.
1
-
14
.
Liu
,
W.
,
Li
,
C.
,
Xu
,
N.
,
Jiang
,
T.
,
Rahaman
,
M.M.
,
Sun
,
H.
,
Wu
,
X.
,
Hu
,
W.
,
Chen
,
H.
,
Sun
,
C.
and
Yao
,
Y.
(
2022a
), “
CVM-Cervix: a hybrid cervical Pap-smear image classification framework using CNN, visual transformer and multilayer perceptron
”,
Pattern Recognition
, Vol.
130
, p.
108829
, doi: .
Liu
,
Z.
,
Lin
,
Y.
,
Cao
,
Y.
,
Hu
,
H.
,
Wei
,
Y.
,
Zhang
,
Z.
,
Lin
,
S.
and
Guo
,
B.
(
2021b
), “
Swin transformer: hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows
”,
IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)
,
Montreal, Canada
,
IEEE
, pp.
9992
-
10002
, .
Liu
,
Z.
,
Mao
,
H.
,
Wu
,
C.
,
Feichtenhofer
,
C.
,
Darrell
,
T.
and
Xie
,
S.
(
2022b
), “
A ConvNet for the 2020s
”,
IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
,
New Orleans
,
IEEE, LA
, pp.
11966
-
11976
.
Luo
,
Y.-M.
,
Zhang
,
T.
,
Li
,
P.
,
Liu
,
P.Z.
,
Sun
,
P.
,
Dong
,
B.
and
Ruan
,
G.
(
2020
), “
MDFI: Multi-CNN decision feature integration for diagnosis of cervical precancerous lesions
”,
IEEE Access
, Vol.
8
, pp.
29616
-
29626
, doi: .
Ma
,
J.-H.
,
You
,
S.F.
,
Xue
,
J.S.
,
Li
,
X.L.
,
Chen
,
Y.Y.
,
Hu
,
Y.
and
Feng
,
Z.
(
2022
), “
Computer-aided diagnosis of cervical dysplasia using colposcopic images
”,
Frontiers in Oncology
, Vol.
12
, doi: .
Olaf
,
R.
and
Sigrid
,
R.
(
2015
), “
Two major pathways of recurrent high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions of the cervix
”,
International Journal of Cancer
, Vol.
137
No.
10
, pp.
2520
-
2521
.
Pfaendler
,
K.S.
,
Wenzel
,
L.
,
Mechanic
,
M.B.
and
Penner
,
K.R.
(
2015
), “
Cervical cancer survivorship: long-term quality of life and social support
”,
Clinical Therapeutics
, Vol.
37
No.
1
, pp.
39
-
48
, doi: .
Pirovano
,
A.
,
Almeida
,
L.G.
,
Ladjal
,
S.
,
Bloch
,
I.
and
Berlemont
,
S.
(
2021
), “
Computer-aided diagnosis tool for cervical cancer screening with weakly supervised localization and detection of abnormalities using adaptable and explainable classifier
”,
Medical Image Analysis
, Vol.
73
, p.
102167
, doi: .
Pramanik
,
R.
,
Banerjee
,
B.
and
Sarkar
,
R.
(
2023
), “
MSENet: Mean and standard deviation based ensemble network for cervical cancer detection
”,
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence
, Vol.
123
, p.
106336
, doi: .
Qin
,
Z.
,
Zhang
,
P.
,
Wu
,
F.
and
Li
,
X.
(
2021
), “
FcaNet: frequency channel attention networks
”,
IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)
,
Montreal, Canada
,
IEEE
, pp.
763
-
772
, .
Rahaman
,
M.M.
,
Li
,
C.
,
Yao
,
Y.
,
Kulwa
,
F.
,
Wu
,
X.
,
Li
,
X.
and
Wang
,
Q.
(
2021
), “
DeepCervix: a deep learning-based framework for the classification of cervical cells using hybrid deep feature fusion techniques
”,
Computers in Biology and Medicine
, Vol.
136
, p.
104649
, doi: .
Ren
,
S.
,
He
,
K.
,
Girshick
,
R.
and
Sun
,
J.
(
2017
), “
Faster R-CNN: towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks
”,
IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
, Vol.
39
No.
6
, pp.
1137
-
1149
, doi: .
Safaeian
,
M.
,
Solomon
,
D.
and
Castle
,
P.E.
(
2007
), “
Cervical cancer prevention–cervical screening: science in evolution
”,
Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America
, Vol.
34
No.
4
, pp.
739
-
760
, doi: .
Saini
,
S.K.
,
Bansal
,
V.
,
Kaur
,
R.
and
Juneja
,
M.
(
2020
), “
ColpoNet for automated cervical cancer screening using colposcopy images
”,
Machine Vision and Applications
, Vol.
31
No.
3
, pp.
1
-
15
, doi: .
Siegel
,
R.L.
,
Miller
,
K.D.
and
Jemal
,
A.
(
2020
), “
Cancer statistics, 2020
”,
CA: a Cancer Journal for Clinicians
, Vol.
70
No.
1
, pp.
7
-
30
, doi: .
Siegel
,
R.L.
,
Miller
,
K.D.
,
Wagle
,
N.S.
and
Jemal
,
A.
(
2023
), “
Cancer statistics, 2023
”,
CA: a Cancer Journal for Clinicians
, Vol.
73
No.
1
, pp.
17
-
48
, doi: .
Sung
,
H.
,
Ferlay
,
J.
,
Siegel
,
R.L.
,
Laversanne
,
M.
,
Soerjomataram
,
I.
,
Jemal
,
A.
and
Bray
,
F.
(
2021
), “
Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries
”,
CA: a Cancer Journal for Clinicians
, Vol.
71
No.
3
, pp.
209
-
249
, doi: .
Wang
,
Q.
,
Chen
,
K.
,
Dou
,
W.
and
Ma
,
Y.
(
2023
), “
Cross-Attention based Multi-Resolution feature fusion model for self-supervised cervical OCT image classification
”,
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics
, Vol.
20
No.
4
, pp.
2541
-
2554
, doi: .
Waxman
,
A.G.
,
Conageski
,
C.
,
Silver
,
M.I.
,
Tedeschi
,
C.
,
Stier
,
E.A.
,
Apgar
,
B.
,
Huh
,
W.K.
,
Wentzensen
,
N.
,
Massad
,
L.S.
,
Khan
,
M.J.
and
Mayeaux
,
E.J.
, Jr
(
2017
), “
ASCCP colposcopy standards: how do we perform colposcopy? Implications for establishing standards
”,
Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease
, Vol.
21
No.
4
, pp.
235
-
241
, doi: .
Xie
,
S.
,
Girshick
,
R.
,
Doll′ar
,
P.
,
Tu
,
Z.
and
He
,
K.
(
2017
), “
Aggregated residual transformations for deep neural networks
”,
IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
,
Honolulu
,
IEEE, HI
, pp.
5987
-
5995
, doi: .
Xu
,
T.
,
Liu
,
P.
,
Wang
,
X.
,
Li
,
P.
,
Xue
,
H.
,
Jin
,
W.
,
Shen
,
J.
,
Guo
,
J.
,
Dong
,
B.
and
Sun
,
P.
(
2023
), “
CTIFI: Clinical-experience-guided three-vision images features integration for diagnosis of cervical lesions
”,
Biomedical Signal Processing and Control
, Vol.
80
, p.
104235
, doi: .
Xu
,
T.
,
Zhang
,
H.
,
Xin
,
C.
,
Kim
,
E.
,
Long
,
L.R.
,
Xue
,
Z.
,
Antani
,
S.
and
Huang
,
X.
(
2017
), “
Multi-feature based benchmark for cervical dysplasia classification evaluation
”,
Pattern Recognition
, Vol.
63
, pp.
468
-
475
, doi: .
Zhang
,
T.
,
Luo
,
Y.M.
,
Li
,
P.
,
Liu
,
P.Z.
,
Du
,
Y.Z.
,
Sun
,
P.
,
Dong
,
B.
and
Xue
,
H.
(
2020
), “
Cervical precancerous lesions classification using pre-trained densely connected convolutional networks with colposcopy images
”,
Biomedical Signal Processing and Control
, Vol.
55
, pp.
1
-
11
, doi: .
Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at Link to the terms of the CC BY 4.0 licenceLink to the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license.

or Create an Account

Close subscription notice
Close access options