Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35213360›Full record

ReviewCancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers2022

Applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, and image biomarker discovery.

Dina Mikdadi, Kyle A O'Connell, Philip J Meacham, Madeleine A Dugan, Michael O Ojiere, Thaddeus B Carlson, Juergen A Klenk

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and management of gynecologic cancer.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dina MikdadiBiomedical Data Science Lab, Deloitte Consulting LLP, Arlington, VA, USA.
Kyle A O'ConnellBiomedical Data Science Lab, Deloitte Consulting LLP, Arlington, VA, USA.
Philip J MeachamBiomedical Data Science Lab, Deloitte Consulting LLP, Arlington, VA, USA.
Madeleine A DuganBiomedical Data Science Lab, Deloitte Consulting LLP, Arlington, VA, USA.
Michael O OjiereBiomedical Data Science Lab, Deloitte Consulting LLP, Arlington, VA, USA.
Thaddeus B CarlsonBiomedical Data Science Lab, Deloitte Consulting LLP, Arlington, VA, USA.
Juergen A KlenkBiomedical Data Science Lab, Deloitte Consulting LLP, Arlington, VA, USA.
Deloitte (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI), including machine learning (ML) and deep learning, has the potential to revolutionize biomedical research. Defined as the ability to "mimic" human intelligence by machines executing trained algorithms, AI methods are deployed for biomarker discovery.

objectiveWe detail the advancements and challenges in the use of AI for biomarker discovery in ovarian and pancreatic cancer. We also provide an overview of associated regulatory and ethical considerations.

methodsWe conducted a literature review using PubMed and Google Scholar to survey the published findings on the use of AI in ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, and cancer biomarkers.

resultsMost AI models associated with ovarian and pancreatic cancer have yet to be applied in clinical settings, and imaging data in many studies are not publicly available. Low disease prevalence and asymptomatic disease limits data availability required for AI models. The FDA has yet to qualify imaging biomarkers as effective diagnostic tools for these cancers.

conclusionsChallenges associated with data availability, quality, bias, as well as AI transparency and explainability, will likely persist. Explainable and trustworthy AI efforts will need to continue so that the research community can better understand and construct effective models for biomarker discovery in rare cancers.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBiomarkers, TumorBiasEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMachine LearningOvarian NeoplasmsPancreatic NeoplasmsPrognosisBiomarkers, TumorArtificial intelligencebiasbiomarkersmachine learningrare cancer

Identifiers

PMID35213360
PMCPMC12364144
OpenAlexW4214499996

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.