ReviewDigital health
Artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques for predicting neuropathic pain in patients with cancer: A systematic review.
Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- An explainable predictive machine learning model of oxaliplatin induced peripheral neuropathy based on clinical data: a retrospective single center.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- AI-driven CRISPR strategies in breast cancer: Organoid modeling, adaptive editing, and precision delivery.Iranian journal of basic medical sciences · 2026Review
- Integrated multi-omics analysis identifies SELENOP and PKMYT1 as immune-metabolic hub genes in breast cancer.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2025Article
- Predicting cancer treatment outcomes using machine learning enabled clinical decision support systems.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Neuropathic pain (NP) remains a complex, under-recognized complication among cancer patients, frequently arising from surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy. Early prediction is crucial for timely intervention, yet conventional tools often fall short due to their reactive and subjective nature. Aim: This systematic review aims to evaluate the application of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) techniques in predicting NP and related outcomes among oncology patients, highlighting model performance, predictors, and limitations. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar for English-language studies published between January 2020 and February 2025. Fourteen eligible studies were included based on predefined Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Study Design (PICOS) criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2 and PROBAST tools. Results: Most studies in high-income countries focused on breast cancer. Supervised models such as random forest (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) up to 0.94), support vector machine (AUC 0.808-0.87), and deep learning architectures were dominant. Key predictive features included acute postoperative pain, anxiety, type of surgery, and biomarkers like sphinganine-1-phosphate. Only 14% of studies used external validation, and 5% assessed calibration. Multimodal frameworks integrating clinical, emotional, imaging, and molecular data outperformed single-modality models. Conclusion: AI and ML hold significant promise for enhancing NP prediction in cancer care. However, methodological limitations-particularly poor calibration, low external validation, and limited interpretability-currently hinder clinical adoption. Standardization, explainable AI, and diverse datasets are essential for future progress.
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.