ReviewBMJ oncology2024
Prospective evaluation of artificial intelligence (AI) applications for use in cancer pathways following diagnosis: a systematic review.
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.
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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Diagnostic performance of deep learning for predicting glioma isocitrate dehydrogenase and 1p/19q co-deletion in MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Machine Learning for Multi-Omics Characterization of Blood Cancers: A Systematic Review.Cells · 2025Pooled it
- Autonomous artificial intelligence prescribing a drug to prevent severe acute graft-versus-host disease in HLA-haploidentical transplants.Nature communications · 2025Trial
- A Scoping Review of Implemented Innovations in Cancer Care: Implications for Pan-Canadian Scaling.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in chronic kidney disease: Early detection, risk prediction, and personalized treatment strategies.World journal of nephrology · 2026Review
- Review
- Programmed cell death and metastatic evolution in breast cancer: the role of anoikis, necroptosis, and ferroptosis.Apoptosis : an international journal on programmed cell death · 2026Review
- Receptiveness of physicians towards artificial intelligence-driven drug prescription: a nationwide survey.npj health systems · 2026Article
- From Bench to Bedside: The Path Toward Real-World Translation for Artificial Intelligence in Pancreatic Cancer Detection.Korean journal of radiology · 2026Review
- Beyond Model Development in Healthcare AI: Post-Development Robustness, Post-Deployment Monitoring, and Lifecycle Governance-A Scoping Review of Reviews.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- Review
- Crowdsourcing Cancer Survivors' Perspectives on the Use of Artificial Intelligence and Automation in Financial Hardship Interventions.JCO oncology practice · 2026Article
- Deep learning in lower gastrointestinal cancer detection: Advances in endoscopic, radiologic, and histopathologic diagnostics.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Review
- Vascular calcifications in early-breast radiotherapy planning-CT: Opportunistic detection and cardiovascular risk assessment.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- "Enhancing early detection of oral cancer: a comparative study of artificial intelligence models and clinical specialist in lesion classification".BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Advances and Challenges in Drug Screening for Cancer Therapy: A Comprehensive Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Oncology: A 10-Year ClinicalTrials.gov-Based Analysis Across the Cancer Control Continuum.Cancers · 2025Review
- Evaluating privacy policies of AI-powered mHealth iOS applications.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.