Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40206631›Full record

ReviewMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2023

Artificial Intelligence in Histologic Diagnosis of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

Michael Co, Yik Ching Christy Lau, Yi Xuan Yvonne Qian, Man Chun Ryan Chan, Desiree Ka-Ka Wong, Ka Ho Lui, Nicholas Yu Han So, Stephanie Wing Sum Tso, Yu Chee Lo, Woo Jung Lee and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The promise of artificial intelligence in diagnostic breast pathology.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

11 authors.

Michael CoDepartment of Surgery, Center for Education and Training, Queen Mary Hospital, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Yik Ching Christy LauDepartment of Surgery, Center for Education and Training, Queen Mary Hospital, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Yi Xuan Yvonne QianDepartment of Surgery, Center for Education and Training, Queen Mary Hospital, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Man Chun Ryan ChanDepartment of Surgery, Center for Education and Training, Queen Mary Hospital, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Desiree Ka-Ka WongDepartment of Surgery, Center for Education and Training, Queen Mary Hospital, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Ka Ho LuiDepartment of Surgery, Center for Education and Training, Queen Mary Hospital, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Nicholas Yu Han SoDepartment of Surgery, Center for Education and Training, Queen Mary Hospital, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Stephanie Wing Sum TsoDepartment of Surgery, Center for Education and Training, Queen Mary Hospital, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Yu Chee LoDepartment of Surgery, Center for Education and Training, Queen Mary Hospital, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Woo Jung LeeDepartment of Surgery, Center for Education and Training, Queen Mary Hospital, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Elaine WongDepartment of Surgery, Center for Education and Training, Queen Mary Hospital, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID40206631
PMCPMC11975642

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.