Deep Learning for Cervical Cytology Screening: Methods, Algorithms, Challenges and Prospects
Organizations: Qiushi Academy for Advanced Studies, Zhejiang University, 38 Zheda Road, Hangzhou, 310012, China. · College of Computer Science and Technology, Zhejiang University, 38 Zheda Road, Hangzhou, 310012, China.
Abstract
Cervical cancer remains a leading cause of cancer death among women, with more than 90% of deaths occurring in low- and middle-income countries, where cytology screening is constrained by a shortage of trained cytopathologists. Deep learning has made automated cytology screening increasingly feasible, but the literature is fragmented across cell, patch and whole-slide-image scales, task formulations and supervision regimes, hindering comparison and clinical translation. This Review synthesizes the deep learning literature for cervical cytology screening, organizing the field along three axes---data scale, functional task and supervision---and distinguishing two clinical roadmaps: whole-slide-image confidence aggregation and cell-level detection with Bethesda classification. We examine 16 publicly available or publicly documented cytology datasets alongside the CAISHI histopathology dataset, compare quantitative performance while exposing incomparable metrics and data leakage, and assess commercial systems, regulatory status, HPV-era screening pathways and low-resource deployment. Single-cell accuracy on Herlev and SIPaKMeD has plateaued, but this reflects benchmark saturation rather than clinical readiness; prospective and randomized evidence is emerging but remains limited. We consolidate the evidence into five challenge areas---data and benchmarks, architecture and label-efficient learning, trustworthy AI, clinical translation and health economics, and evaluation and reproducibility---and provide an evidence-to-agenda map and a deployment decision matrix. Progress now depends on multi-center benchmarks, externally validated label-efficient methods, calibrated and fair predictions, and pragmatic clinical trials rather than further gains on saturated single-cell benchmarks.
Figures & tables
| Stage | Records |
|---|---|
| Records identified from databases | 163 |
| Duplicates removed | 1 |
| Records screened at title/abstract | 162 |
| Records excluded at title/abstract | 20 |
| Full-text records assessed | 142 |
| Excluded: non-cytology | 9 |
| Deployment setting | WSI scanner | Label budget | Recommended route | Primary metrics |
| High-resource screening laboratory | Yes | High | Roadmap 2 (cell detection) or WSI MIL | Sensitivity at fixed specificity; PPV; turnaround time |
| Low-resource, no scanner | No | Low | WSI-free/edge AI (e.g., CYTOLONE) | NPV; offline latency; cost per case |
| Rare cell types (AGC, AIS) | Any | Very low | Few-shot/SSL + hierarchical classifier | Per-class recall; AUPRC |
| Slide-level labels only | Yes | Low | MIL/weak supervision | AUC; calibration |
| Method benchmark | Public data | Medium | Fixed splits + external validation | DSC/AJI/mAP with 95% CI |
| Metric | Formula | Primary Application |
| Precision | Classification, Detection | |
| Recall | Classification, Detection | |
| F1 score | Classification (harmonic mean) | |
| Sensitivity | Classification, Screening | |
| Specificity | Classification, Screening | |
| Accuracy | Classification |
| Item | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Data split | Patient-level or slide-level; no patch leakage across training and test sets |
| Prevalence | Report the abnormal rate in the evaluation cohort |
| Classification | Sensitivity, specificity, AUC (95% CI); sensitivity at fixed specificity; PPV/NPV at stated prevalence |
| Calibration | Reliability diagram and expected calibration error (ECE) |
| Segmentation | DSC/AJI with explicit definition; per-class or per-cell-type results |
| Detection | mAP with explicit IoU threshold; AP50 and AP75; FROC when clinically relevant |
| Abbrev. | Meaning | Abbrev. | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| TBS | Bethesda System | WSI | Whole-slide image |
| ASC-US | Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance | ROI | Region of interest |
| ASC-H | Atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude HSIL | CAD | Computer-aided diagnosis/detection |
| LSIL | Low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion | HPV | Human papillomavirus |
| HSIL | High-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion | TCT | ThinPrep cytologic test |
| SCC | Squamous cell carcinoma | LBC | Liquid-based cytology |
| Abbrev. | Meaning | Abbrev. | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI | Artificial intelligence | MIL | Multiple-instance learning |
| CNN | Convolutional neural network | SSL | Self-supervised learning |
| FCN | Fully convolutional network | TTA | Test-time adaptation |
| R-CNN | Region-based convolutional neural network | PEFT | Parameter-efficient fine-tuning |
| YOLO | You Only Look Once | FM | Foundation model |
| DETR | Detection Transformer | AUC | Area under the ROC curve |
| Dataset | Year | Scale (type; size) | Cytology type | Annotation | Annotators | Primary task | Key limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Herlev Jantzen et al. (2005) | 2005 | Cell; 917 cells | Conventional Pap | 7-class; N/C masks | N/R | Seg., Cls. | Small; single center |
| ISBI14 Lu et al. (2015) | 2014 | Patch; 16 EDFs, 945 patches | EDF | N/C masks | N/R | Seg. | Synthetic patches |
| ISBI15 Lu et al. (2017) | 2015 | Patch; 17 EDFs, 340 FOVs | EDF | N/C masks | N/R | Seg. | Single staining |
| CERVIX93 Phoulady and Mouton (2018) | 2017 | Patch; 93 EDFs, 1,860 FOVs | EDF | Nucleus masks | N/R | Seg. | No cytoplasm |
| CRIC Rezende et al. (2020) | 2020 | Patch; 400 patches, 3,233 cells | N/R | 6-class | N/R | Cls. | No masks |
| SIPaKMeD Plissiti et al. (2018) | 2018 | Cell/patch; 996 patches, 4,049 cells | Conventional Pap | 5-class | N/R | Cls. | No localization |
| Method | Year | Architecture | Dataset | Key Performance |
| U-Net (PGU-net+) Zhao et al. (2019a) | 2019 | Progressive U-Net | Herlev | DSC 0.925 (ZSI), Prec 0.901 |
| URestNet Mahyari and Dansereau (2021) | 2021 | Two-stage U-Net+Residual | Private | Single cell segmentation |
| TernausNet+DeepLab Wan et al. (2019) | 2019 | U-Net+DeepLabV2 | Private | Cell+cytoplasm |
| VGG16+HSDC U-Net Ke et al. (2019) | 2019 | U-Net+HSDC decoder | Private | 3-class (nuclei, cyto, bg) |
| D-MEM Zhao et al. (2019b) | 2019 | Deformable U-Net ensemble | Herlev, private | DSC 0.925, Recall 0.968 |
| FCN ensemble Harangi et al. (2019) | 2019 | FCN-8+FCN-16 ensemble | Herlev | DSC 0.93 (single), IoU 0.534 (multi) |
| Shape features | Color features | Texture features | Deep learning-based features | Other features |
| area (N,C) | brightness (N,C) | LBP | Lenet | fourier operator |
| roundness (N,C) | gray value (N,C) | GLCM | Inception | temporal |
| eccentricity (N,C) | color intensity | roughness | ResNet | weighted PCA |
| long diameter (N,C) | minimum brightness | histogram | VGG | wavelet |
| short diameter (N,C) | maximum brightness | TAS | Xception-Net | texture and energy in frequency domain |
| perimeter (N,C) | average color value | Laws | Squeeze-Net |
| Method | Year | Architecture Category | Dataset | Key Performance |
| VGG16/19 Tripathi et al. (2021) | 2021 | VGG | Herlev, SIPaKMeD | Prec 0.944 (5-class) |
| VGG Kurnianingsih et al. (2019) | 2019 | VGG | Herlev, private | Acc 0.95 (7-class) |
| AlexNet (DeepPap) Zhang et al. (2017) | 2017 | AlexNet | Herlev | Acc 0.93, Prec 0.96, F1 0.95 (7-class) |
| AlexNet Yilmaz et al. (2020) | 2020 | AlexNet | Herlev | Acc 0.93, F1 0.95 (7-class) |
| AlexNet Plissiti et al. (2018) | 2018 | AlexNet | SIPaKMeD | 5-class benchmark |
| Stacked AE Adem et al. (2019) | 2019 | Autoencoder | Herlev | Acc 0.978 |
| Method | Architecture | Dataset | Category | Key Performance |
| Mask R-CNN Sompawong et al. (2019) | Mask R-CNN | Private | Instance Seg. | mAP 0.578, Acc 0.917, Sen 0.917, Spe 0.917 |
| Mask R-CNN+NAS-FPN Long et al. (2021) | Mask R-CNN+NAS-FPN | Private | Instance Seg. | Multi-scale fusion, soft-NMS |
| MMT-PSM Zhou et al. (2020) | Semi-supervised Mask R-CNN | Private | Instance Seg. | AJI 0.6694, mAP 0.4052 |
| SSD+Loss Jia et al. (2021) | SSD enhanced | Private | Detection (1-stage) | mAP 0.8153 |
| YOLO3+ILCB+SSAM Liang et al. (2021a) | YOLO3 enhanced | Private | Detection (1-stage) | mAP 0.634 |
| YOLO3+Inception Xiang et al. (2020) | YOLO3, InceptionV2 | Private | Detection (1-stage) | mAP 0.628 (+5.7% over YOLO3) |
| Method | Architecture | Dataset | Category | Key Performance |
| Weka+fuzzy c-means William et al. (2019) | Handcrafted features+clustering | Private | Classical | FN 0.000, FP 0.100, Err 0.050 |
| DP-Net Lin et al. (2021) | Dual-path encoder+group loss | Private | WSI Confidence | Risk stratification |
| Hierarchical Zhou et al. (2021a) | Cell det. + aggregation | Private | WSI Confidence | Multi-scale |
| 3-stage cascade Gupta et al. (2020) | 3 cascaded CNNs | Private | WSI Confidence | Content, noise, abnormality classifiers |
| CNN+RNN Kanavati et al. (2022) | CNN+RNN | Private | WSI Confidence | AUC 0.89–0.96 |
| YOLCO+InCNet Wei et al. (2021) | Lightweight YOLO | Private | WSI Confidence | Multi-scale efficient |
| Method | Training data | Backbone/aggregation | External validation | AUC | Sensitivity | Specificity | Code |
| UniCAS Jiang et al. (2026) | 48,532 TCT WSIs | TransMIL/DTFree | N/R | 0.909–0.923 | N/R | N/R | Yes |
| Smart-CCS Jiang et al. (2025) | CCS-127K: 127,471 WSIs, 48 centers | SSL + test-time adaptation | 6 external datasets; 3 prospective centers | 0.965 internal; 0.950 external; 0.947–0.986 prospective | 0.913 | N/R | N/R |
| Huang et al. Huang et al. (2025) | Large pathology FM | PEFT + contrastive learning | N/R | N/R | 0.9784 | N/R (+8.87 pp vs prior) | Yes |
| Twin-MIL Fei et al. (2025) | Limited cell labels + slide-level labels | Detector + MIL with twin memory | N/R | N/R | N/R | N/R | N/R |
| CYTOLONE Kurita et al. (2025) | 10,080 tiles from 318 patients | CLIP-ViT-B/16 | N/R | N/R | Anomaly 0.958 | N/R | Yes |
| AICCS Wang et al. (2024) | 16,056 participants | Retina + ResNet18 + RF | Prospective + randomized observational (single country) | 0.947 | 0.946 | 0.890 | N/R |
| System | Country | Intended use | Evidence design | Approval | Key metrics | Limitations |
| Hologic Genius U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2024) ; Chong and Bychkov (2026) | US | Computer-assisted reading of ThinPrep slides | Multi-site clinical study | FDA De Novo 2024 (DEN210035, QYV) | HSIL+ sensitivity +3.6 pp vs TIS | Assistive only; no standalone claim |
| Saivisen Wondfo Biotech (2025) | China | AI-assisted cervical cytology diagnosis | N/R | NMPA Class III, Feb 2025 | N/R | First “assisted diagnosis” certificate |
| Hangzhou 91360 Hangzhou 91360 Medical Technology (2023) | China | Digital pathology CAD | N/R | NMPA Class III, Mar 2023 | N/R | First AI Class III in cervical cytology |
| CytoProcessor Crowell et al. (2019) | France | Automated screening | N/R | CE, 2019 | N/R | Limited public validation data |
| AICCS Wang et al. (2024) | China | Cytology grading and screening | Retrospective + prospective + randomized observational | Research | AUC 0.947; Sens 0.946; Spec 0.890 | Single country |
| Smart-CCS Jiang et al. (2025) | China | Generalizable WSI screening | Retrospective + external + prospective | Research/preprint | AUC 0.947–0.986 | Preprint; public code N/R |
| Theme | Evidence | Main gap | Priority direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data and benchmarks | Sections 5 , 6 – 8 | Single-center, small, incompletely documented datasets; no multi-center WSI benchmark with outcomes | Federated multi-center datasets; fixed splits; datasheets; rare-class augmentation |
| Architecture and label-efficient learning | Sections 6 – 9 | Generic architectures; annotation cost; limited external validation of SSL/MIL/few-shot | Cervical-specific architectures; SSL/MIL/few-shot; test-time adaptation |
| Trustworthy AI | Section 11 | Post-hoc explanations; no subgroup or fairness reporting; few human-AI studies | Concept bottlenecks; uncertainty; fairness audits; pre-registered user studies |
| Clinical translation and economics | Section 10 | Few randomized trials; workflow integration; cost-effectiveness unknown | Multi-center trials; regulatory intended use; cost/QALY analyses |
| Evaluation and reproducibility | Sections 4.3 , 12.5 | Incomparable metrics; leakage; missing code and weights | CLAIM/TRIPOD-AI/STARD-AI; QUADAS-2; leaderboards; open code |
Medical Image Classification
Medical image classification uses computational models to identify diseases, grade severity, and support decisions from clinical images.
See all 513 papers