ReviewCancers2025
Exploring Artificial Intelligence Biases in Predictive Models for Cancer Diagnosis.
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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Pancreatic Endoscopic Ultrasonography: From Image-Based Diagnosis to Cytopathology.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Closing the Translational Gap: Closed-Loop AI Discovery Frameworks for Experimental Validation and Clinical Implementation in Cancer Therapeutics.Cancer medicine · 2026Review
- Next-generation biomedical nanorobots: active design, intelligent control, and translational opportunities in regenerative and minimally invasive medicine.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- Extracting Cardiorespiratory Symptoms From Clinical Notes Using Open-Weight Large Language Models: Method Development and Validation Study.JMIR cardio · 2026Article
- Next-Generation Artificial Intelligence Strategies for Mechanistic Cancer Target Discovery and Drug Development: A State-of-the-Art Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Will AI Replace Physicians in the Near Future? AI Adoption Barriers in Medicine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Ethical Responsibility in Medical AI: A Semi-Systematic Thematic Review and Multilevel Governance Model.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Predicting the Unpredictable: AI-Driven Prognosis in Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms.Cancers · 2026Review
- Navigating bibliometric indicators in university rankings: a conceptual framework for strategic research management.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Review
- In vivo and in silico models of Drosophila for Parkinson's disease.The FEBS journal · 2025Review
- The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Personalized Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Machine Learning Models for Predicting Gynecological Cancers: Advances, Challenges, and Future Directions.Cancers · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence for Prognosis of Gastro-Entero-Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms.Cancers · 2025Review
- Deep Learning Approaches to Forecast Physical and Mental Deterioration During Chemotherapy in Patients with Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in oncology drug development and management: a precision medicine perspective.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Commentary: Predicting histologic grades for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors by radiologic image-based artificial intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Methodological and reporting quality of machine learning studies on cancer diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Predicting Chemotherapy-Related Symptom Deterioration Using Hybrid Deep Learning Architecture.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024Article
- Risks and Benefits of Artificial Intelligence as an Adjunct in Colorectal Multidisciplinary Decision Making.ANZ journal of surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.