ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
Artificial Intelligence in the Management of Women with Endometriosis and Adenomyosis: Can Machines Ever Be Worse Than Humans?
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. 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.
- Emerging Pathways to Non-Invasive Diagnosis in Endometriosis: Integrating Machine Learning, Deep Learning and Multi-Omics Biomarkers.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Evaluating the quality and readability of AI-generated information on adenomyosis: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT and deepseek regarding query-model consistency.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Current Insights into Endometriosis: Hormonal Management, Clinical Outcomes, and Opportunities for Progress.Current pharmaceutical design · 2026Review
- Article
- From Diagnosis to Fertility: Optimizing Treatment of Adenomyosis for Reproductive Health.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is experiencing advances and integration in all medical specializations, and this creates excitement but also concerns. This narrative review aims to critically assess the state of the art of AI in the field of endometriosis and adenomyosis. By enabling automation, AI may speed up some routine tasks, decreasing gynecologists' risk of burnout, as well as enabling them to spend more time interacting with their patients, increasing their efficiency and patients' perception of being taken care of. Surgery may also benefit from AI, especially through its integration with robotic surgery systems. This may improve the detection of anatomical structures and enhance surgical outcomes by combining intra-operative findings with pre-operative imaging. Not only that, but AI promises to improve the quality of care by facilitating clinical research. Through the introduction of decision-support tools, it can enhance diagnostic assessment; it can also predict treatment effectiveness and side effects, as well as reproductive prognosis and cancer risk. However, concerns exist regarding the fact that good quality data used in tool development and compliance with data sharing guidelines are crucial. Also, professionals are worried AI may render certain specialists obsolete. This said, AI is more likely to become a well-liked team member rather than a usurper.
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.