Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40656430›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

Artificial Intelligence in Ultrasound-Based Diagnoses of Gynecological Tumors: A Systematic Review.

Fatima Siddig Abdalla Mohammed, Sara Mirghani Ahmed Eisa, Alsafa Mohamed Abdalla Madani, Najah Madyan F Alrowili, Ahlam Mohammed K Al Ghaythan, Ibtihal Meargani Mohamed Ali, Lamis Elamin, Naima Abdirahman Salad

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

8 authors.

Fatima Siddig Abdalla MohammedObstetrics and Gynecology, Najran Armed Forces Hospital, Ministry of Defense Health Services, Najran, SAU.
Sara Mirghani Ahmed EisaObstetrics and Gynecology, University of Juba, Khartoum, SDN.
Alsafa Mohamed Abdalla MadaniObstetrics and Gynecology, Wadi-Adawsir General Hospital, Wadi ad-Dawasir, SAU.
Najah Madyan F AlrowiliNursing, Najran Armed Forces Hospital, Ministry of Defense Health Services, Najran, SAU.
Ahlam Mohammed K Al GhaythanObstetrics and Gynecology, Najran Armed Forces Hospital, Ministry of Defense Health Services, Najran, SAU.
Ibtihal Meargani Mohamed AliDepartment of Women and Children, Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary Hospital, Dumfries, GBR.
Lamis ElaminObstetrics and Gynecology, Colchester Hospital, Colchester, GBR.
Naima Abdirahman SaladObstetrics and Gynecology, Sultan Qaboos University Hospital, Muscat, OMN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gynecological tumors, particularly ovarian, endometrial, and uterine masses, pose significant diagnostic challenges due to their heterogeneity and the subjective nature of ultrasound interpretation. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool to enhance diagnostic accuracy, yet its clinical adoption remains limited. This systematic review synthesizes evidence on AI applications in ultrasound-based diagnosis of gynecological tumors, evaluating performance metrics, methodological strengths, and limitations to guide future research and clinical implementation.  Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore (IEEE Xplore), Scopus, and Web of Science, yielding 252 records. After removing duplicates and screening titles/abstracts, 106 studies were assessed, with 26 meeting inclusion criteria. Eligible studies investigated AI models for gynecological tumor diagnosis using ultrasound. Data were extracted on study design, sample size, AI methodology, performance metrics, and clinical applicability. Risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). Narrative synthesis was performed due to methodological heterogeneity.  The 26 included studies demonstrated strong diagnostic performance, with AI models achieving accuracies of 75-99.8% and area under the curve (AUCs) up to 0.99 in differentiating benign from malignant tumors. Deep learning architectures (e.g., convolutional neural networks (CNNs), residual neural networks (ResNet)) outperformed traditional machine learning in most studies, particularly when integrating radiomics with clinical variables (e.g., cancer antigen 125 (CA-125)). However, heterogeneity in imaging protocols, sample sizes, and validation methods limited comparability. Only three studies employed prospective designs, and few addressed algorithmic bias or real-world clinical integration. AI shows significant potential to improve ultrasound-based diagnosis of gynecological tumors, offering superior accuracy and reproducibility compared to conventional methods. However, standardized imaging protocols, robust external validation, and prospective trials are needed to translate these tools into clinical practice. Future work should prioritize explainable AI, diverse datasets, and outcome studies to ensure equitable and effective implementation.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencediagnostic accuracygynecological tumorsmachine learningsystematic reviewultrasound

Identifiers

PMID40656430
PMCPMC12255850

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.