Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39941776›Full record

ReviewCancers2025

Exploring Artificial Intelligence Biases in Predictive Models for Cancer Diagnosis.

Aref Smiley, C Mahony Reategui-Rivera, David Villarreal-Zegarra, Stefan Escobar-Agreda, Joseph Finkelstein

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

5 authors.

Aref SmileyDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1077-2229
C Mahony Reategui-RiveraDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4030-8777
David Villarreal-ZegarraDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA.
Stefan Escobar-AgredaTelehealth Unit, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima 15081, Peru.ORCID 0000-0002-8355-4310
Joseph FinkelsteinDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8084-7441

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has released the principles for the responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) in oncology emphasizing fairness, accountability, oversight, equity, and transparency. However, the extent to which these principles are followed is unknown. The goal of this study was to assess the presence of biases and the quality of studies on AI models according to the ASCO principles and examine their potential impact through citation analysis and subsequent research applications. A review of original research articles centered on the evaluation of predictive models for cancer diagnosis published in the ASCO journal dedicated to informatics and data science in clinical oncology was conducted. Seventeen potential bias criteria were used to evaluate the sources of bias in the studies, aligned with the ASCO's principles for responsible AI use in oncology. The CREMLS checklist was applied to assess the study quality, focusing on the reporting standards, and the performance metrics along with citation counts of the included studies were analyzed. Nine studies were included. The most common biases were environmental and life-course bias, contextual bias, provider expertise bias, and implicit bias. Among the ASCO principles, the least adhered to were transparency, oversight and privacy, and human-centered AI application. Only 22% of the studies provided access to their data. The CREMLS checklist revealed the deficiencies in methodology and evaluation reporting. Most studies reported performance metrics within moderate to high ranges. Additionally, two studies were replicated in the subsequent research. In conclusion, most studies exhibited various types of bias, reporting deficiencies, and failure to adhere to the principles for responsible AI use in oncology, limiting their applicability and reproducibility. Greater transparency, data accessibility, and compliance with international guidelines are recommended to improve the reliability of AI-based research in oncology.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencebiascancer

Identifiers

PMID39941776
PMCPMC11816222

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.