ReviewMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2023
Artificial Intelligence in Histologic Diagnosis of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.
Review in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The promise of artificial intelligence in diagnostic breast pathology.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Article
- Influence of follow-up, screening age, interval, and compliance on overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): A modelling study.PloS one · 2026Article
- The role of AI for improved management of breast cancer: Enhanced diagnosis and health disparity mitigation.Computer methods and programs in biomedicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A systematic review was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) in ductal carcinoma in situ. Four databases were searched for articles up to December 2022: Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. 23 studies were included, and a search of grey literature was not performed. The following parameters were extracted: the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of each study. Statistical analysis of the included studies revealed that AI-assisted histopathological analysis is of high accuracy (83.78%), sensitivity (83.88%), and specificity (85.49%) and has a high positive predictive value (89.43%). Our results also reported that convolutional neural network (CNN) is the most commonly used mode of machine learning-21 models used only CNN, whereas 2 models used only support vector machines (SVM). On an average, CNN reported slightly higher accuracy and sensitivity (86.71% and 85.22%, respectively) than SVM (accuracy, 85.00%; sensitivity, 70.00%). When the 2 methods were combined, a mean accuracy of 82.52% and a mean sensitivity of 83.00% were achieved. The use of AI as a diagnostic adjunct can markedly improve the accuracy and efficiency of DCIS diagnosis and can, therefore, reduce pathologists' workload.
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.