SynthesisOral diseases2025
Diagnosis of Oral Cancer With Deep Learning. A Comparative Test Accuracy Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Oral diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence in oral squamous cell carcinoma detection: a higher-order evidence synthesis through umbrella review and meta-meta-analysis.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Pooled it
- [Current applications and future perspectives of automation technologies and devices in oral diagnosis and treatment].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence for the detection and diagnosis of oral and maxillofacial lesions: evidence, limitations, and future directions.Brazilian oral research · 2026Review
- Domain-generalizable oral cancer classification: bridging multi-center histopathological datasets.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
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
Abstract
objectiveTo directly compare the diagnostic accuracy of deep learning models with human experts and other diagnostic methods used for the clinical detection of oral cancer.
methodsComparative diagnostic studies involving patients with photographic images of oral mucosal lesions (cancer or non-cancer) were included. Only studies using deep learning methods were eligible. Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched until September 2024. QUADAS-C assessed the risk of bias. A Bayesian meta-analysis compared diagnostic test accuracy.
resultsEight studies were included, none of which had a low risk of bias. Three studies compared deep learning versus human experts. The difference in sensitivity favored deep learning by 0.024 (95% CI: -0.093, 0.206), while the difference in specificity favored human experts by -0.041 (95% CI: -0.218, 0.038). Two studies compared deep learning versus postgraduate medical students. The differences in sensitivity and specificity favored deep learning by 0.108 (95% CI: -0.038, 0.324) and by 0.010 (95% CI: -0.119, 0.111), respectively. Both comparisons provided low-level evidence.
conclusionsDeep learning models showed comparable sensitivity and specificity to human experts. These models outperformed postgraduate medical students in terms of sensitivity. Prospective clinical trials are needed to evaluate the real-world performance of deep learning models.
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.