ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Artificial Intelligence in Pancreatic Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm Imaging: A Systematic Review.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Based on the Fukuoka and Kyoto international consensus guidelines, the current clinical management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) largely depends on imaging features. While these criteria are highly sensitive in detecting high-risk IPMN, they lack specificity, resulting in surgical overtreatment. Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based medical image analysis has the potential to augment the clinical management of IPMNs by improving diagnostic accuracy. Methods: Based on a systematic review of the academic literature on AI in IPMN imaging, 1041 publications were identified of which 25 published studies were included in the analysis. The studies were stratified based on prediction target, underlying data type and imaging modality, patient cohort size, and stage of clinical translation and were subsequently analyzed to identify trends and gaps in the field. Results: Research on AI in IPMN imaging has been increasing in recent years. The majority of studies utilized CT imaging to train computational models. Most studies presented computational models developed on single-center datasets (n=11,44%) and included less than 250 patients (n=18,72%). Methodologically, convolutional neural network (CNN)-based algorithms were most commonly used. Thematically, most studies reported models augmenting differential diagnosis (n=9,36%) or risk stratification (n=10,40%) rather than IPMN detection (n=5,20%) or IPMN segmentation (n=2,8%). Conclusion: This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of the research landscape of AI in IPMN imaging. Computational models have potential to enhance the accurate and precise stratification of patients with IPMN. Multicenter collaboration and datasets comprising various modalities are necessary to fully utilize this potential, alongside concerted efforts towards clinical translation.
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.