ReviewCurrent oncology reports2023
Artificial Intelligence and Cancer Control: Toward Prioritizing Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI) in Emerging Decision Support Technologies.
Review in Current oncology reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Current status and solutions for AI ethics in ophthalmology: a bibliometric analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Using machine learning to increase access to and engagement with trauma-focused interventions for posttraumatic stress disorder.The British journal of clinical psychology · 2025Review
- Applied artificial intelligence for global child health: Addressing biases and barriers.PLOS digital health · 2024Review
- The Consistency and Quality of ChatGPT Responses Compared to Clinical Guidelines for Ovarian Cancer: A Delphi Approach.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- New regulatory thinking is needed for AI-based personalised drug and cell therapies in precision oncology.NPJ precision oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose for reviewThis perspective piece has two goals: first, to describe issues related to artificial intelligence-based applications for cancer control as they may impact health inequities or disparities; and second, to report on a review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of artificial intelligence-based tools for cancer control to ascertain the extent to which discussions of justice, equity, diversity, inclusion, or health disparities manifest in syntheses of the field's best evidence. RECENT
findingsWe found that, while a significant proportion of existing syntheses of research on AI-based tools in cancer control use formal bias assessment tools, the fairness or equitability of models is not yet systematically analyzable across studies. Issues related to real-world use of AI-based tools for cancer control, such as workflow considerations, measures of usability and acceptance, or tool architecture, are more visible in the literature, but still addressed only in a minority of reviews. Artificial intelligence is poised to bring significant benefits to a wide range of applications in cancer control, but more thorough and standardized evaluations and reporting of model fairness are required to build the evidence base for AI-based tool design for cancer and to ensure that these emerging technologies promote equitable healthcare.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36811808What 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.