ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Evolution of research trends in artificial intelligence for breast cancer diagnosis and prognosis over the past two decades: A bibliometric analysis.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A review of application of Artificial Intelligence in breast cancer detection and treatment.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence for triple-negative breast cancer from imaging to multi-omics.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Bibliometric analysis of research on artificial İntelligence applications in breast cancer diagnosis.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2026Article
- Mapping the future of early breast cancer diagnosis: a bibliometric analysis of AI innovations.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Metabolomics-Based Machine Learning Models Accurately Predict Breast Cancer Estrogen Receptor Status.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: In recent years, among the available tools, the concurrent application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has improved the diagnostic performance of breast cancer screening. In this context, the present study intends to provide a comprehensive overview of the evolution of AI for breast cancer diagnosis and prognosis research using bibliometric analysis. Methodology: Therefore, in the present study, relevant peer-reviewed research articles published from 2000 to 2021 were downloaded from the Scopus and Web of Science (WOS) databases and later quantitatively analyzed and visualized using Bibliometrix (R package). Finally, open challenges areas were identified for future research work. Results: The present study revealed that the number of literature studies published in AI for breast cancer detection and survival prediction has increased from 12 to 546 between the years 2000 to 2021. The United States of America (USA), the Republic of China, and India are the most productive publication-wise in this field. Furthermore, the USA leads in terms of the total citations; however, hungry and Holland take the lead positions in average citations per year. Wang J is the most productive author, and Zhan J is the most relevant author in this field. Stanford University in the USA is the most relevant affiliation by the number of published articles. The top 10 most relevant sources are Q1 journals with PLOS ONE and computer in Biology and Medicine are the leading journals in this field. The most trending topics related to our study, transfer learning and deep learning, were identified. Conclusion: The present findings provide insight and research directions for policymakers and academic researchers for future collaboration and research in AI for breast cancer patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.