Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36310650›Full record

ReviewCommunications medicine2022

Artificial intelligence and machine learning in cancer imaging.

Dow-Mu Koh, Nickolas Papanikolaou, Ulrich Bick, Rowland Illing, Charles E Kahn, Jayshree Kalpathi-Cramer, Celso Matos, Luis Martí-Bonmatí, Anne Miles, Seong Ki Mun and 5 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Communications medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 130 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
130citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

130 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

70 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

15 authors.

Dow-Mu Koh *Department of Radiology, Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7654-8011
Nickolas Papanikolaou *Department of Radiology, Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3298-2072
Ulrich BickCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7254-8572
Rowland IllingDepartment of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Charles E KahnDepartment of Radiology and Institute for Biomedical Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6654-7434
Jayshree Kalpathi-CramerCentre for machine learning, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Celso MatosChampalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal.
Luis Martí-BonmatíDepartment of Radiology, Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe, Valencia, Spain.
Anne MilesDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck University, London, UK.
Seong Ki MunArlington Innovation Center for Health Research, Virginia Tech, Arlington, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9661-7918
Sandy NapelDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6876-5507
Andrea RockallDepartment of Radiology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8270-5597
Evis SalaDepartment of Radiology, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5518-9360
Nicola StricklandDepartment of Radiology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Fred PriorDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Department of Radiology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6314-5683

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An increasing array of tools is being developed using artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) for cancer imaging. The development of an optimal tool requires multidisciplinary engagement to ensure that the appropriate use case is met, as well as to undertake robust development and testing prior to its adoption into healthcare systems. This multidisciplinary review highlights key developments in the field. We discuss the challenges and opportunities of AI and ML in cancer imaging; considerations for the development of algorithms into tools that can be widely used and disseminated; and the development of the ecosystem needed to promote growth of AI and ML in cancer imaging.

Indexed as

BiomarkersCancer imaging

Identifiers

PMID36310650
PMCPMC9613681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.