Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39886134›Full record

ReviewBMJ oncology2024

Prospective evaluation of artificial intelligence (AI) applications for use in cancer pathways following diagnosis: a systematic review.

Sheba Macheka, Peng Yun Ng, Ophira Ginsburg, Andrew Hope, Richard Sullivan, Ajay Aggarwal

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Evaluating privacy policies of AI-powered mHealth iOS applications.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sheba MachekaInstitute of Cancer Policy, King's College London Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, London, UK.
Peng Yun NgInstitute of Cancer Policy, King's College London Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8186-0568
Ophira GinsburgNational Cancer Institute Center for Global Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Andrew HopeRadiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Richard SullivanInstitute of Cancer Policy, King's College London Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6435-1825
Ajay AggarwalInstitute of Cancer Policy, King's College London Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The role of artificial intelligence (AI) in cancer care has evolved in the face of ageing population, workforce shortages and technological advancement. Despite recent uptake in AI research and adoption, the extent to which it improves quality, efficiency and equity of care beyond cancer diagnostics is uncertain to date. Henceforth, the objective of our systematic review is to assess the clinical readiness and deployability of AI through evaluation of prospective studies of AI in cancer care following diagnosis. We undertook a systematic review to determine the types of AI involved and their respective outcomes. A PubMed and Web of Science search between 1 January 2013 and 1 May 2023 identified 15 articles detailing prospective evaluation of AI in postdiagnostic cancer pathway. We appraised all studies using Risk of Bias Assessment of Randomised Controlled Trials and Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions quality assessment tools, as well as implementational analysis concerning time, cost and resource, to ascertain the quality of clinical evidence and real-world feasibility of AI. The results revealed that the majority of AI oncological research remained experimental without prospective clinical validation or deployment. Most studies failed to establish clinical validity and to translate measured AI efficacy into beneficial clinical outcomes. AI research are limited by lack of research standardisation and health system interoperability. Furthermore, implementational analysis and equity considerations of AI were largely missing. To overcome the triad of low-level clinical evidence, efficacy-outcome gap and incompatible research ecosystem for AI, future work should focus on multicollaborative AI implementation research designed and conducted in accordance with up-to-date research standards and local health systems.

Indexed as

chemotherapypalliative careradiation oncologysurgical oncology

Identifiers

PMID39886134
PMCPMC11235004

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.