Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39865461›Full record

SynthesisUnited European gastroenterology journal2025

Artificial Intelligence in Pancreatic Imaging: A Systematic Review.

Nicoleta Podină, Elena Codruța Gheorghe, Alina Constantin, Irina Cazacu, Vlad Croitoru, Cristian Gheorghe, Daniel Vasile Balaban, Mariana Jinga, Cristian George Țieranu, Adrian Săftoiu

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in United European gastroenterology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 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. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

10 authors.

Nicoleta Podină"Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.ORCID 0009-0003-3111-7076
Elena Codruța GheorgheDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Craiova, Craiova, Romania.
Alina ConstantinDepartment of Gastroenterology, Ponderas Academic Hospital, Bucharest, Romania.
Irina CazacuOncology Department, Fundeni Clinical Institute, Bucharest, Romania.
Vlad CroitoruOncology Department, Fundeni Clinical Institute, Bucharest, Romania.
Cristian Gheorghe"Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
Daniel Vasile Balaban"Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
Mariana Jinga"Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
Cristian George Țieranu"Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.ORCID 0000-0001-5348-0341
Adrian Săftoiu"Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.

Funding

HORIZON EUROPE Health 101079210/2022UEFISCDI, Ministry of Education, Romania 23PHE/2023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rising incidence of pancreatic diseases, including acute and chronic pancreatitis and various pancreatic neoplasms, poses a significant global health challenge. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) for example, has a high mortality rate due to late-stage diagnosis and its inaccessible location. Advances in imaging technologies, though improving diagnostic capabilities, still necessitate biopsy confirmation. Artificial intelligence, particularly machine learning and deep learning, has emerged as a revolutionary force in healthcare, enhancing diagnostic precision and personalizing treatment. This narrative review explores Artificial intelligence's role in pancreatic imaging, its technological advancements, clinical applications, and associated challenges. Following the PRISMA-DTA guidelines, a comprehensive search of databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library was conducted, focusing on Artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep learning, and radiomics in pancreatic imaging. Articles involving human subjects, written in English, and published up to March 31, 2024, were included. The review process involved title and abstract screening, followed by full-text review and refinement based on relevance and novelty. Recent Artificial intelligence advancements have shown promise in detecting and diagnosing pancreatic diseases. Deep learning techniques, particularly convolutional neural networks (CNNs), have been effective in detecting and segmenting pancreatic tissues as well as differentiating between benign and malignant lesions. Deep learning algorithms have also been used to predict survival time, recurrence risk, and therapy response in pancreatic cancer patients. Radiomics approaches, extracting quantitative features from imaging modalities such as CT, MRI, and endoscopic ultrasound, have enhanced the accuracy of these deep learning models. Despite the potential of Artificial intelligence in pancreatic imaging, challenges such as legal and ethical considerations, algorithm transparency, and data security remain. This review underscores the transformative potential of Artificial intelligence in enhancing the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic diseases, ultimately aiming to improve patient outcomes and survival rates.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligencePancreasPancreatic DiseasesPancreatic NeoplasmsDeep LearningHumansMachine LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeural Networks, ComputerTomography, X-Ray Computedartificial intelligencedeep learningendoscopic ultrasoundmachine learningpancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Identifiers

PMID39865461
PMCPMC11866320

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.