ReviewBladder (San Francisco, Calif.)2025
Artificial intelligence for diagnosing bladder pathophysiology: An updated review and future prospects.
Review in Bladder (San Francisco, Calif.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Oncology: A Comprehensive Cross-Cancer Translational Readiness Analysis Across 18 Malignancies.Cancers · 2026Review
- Article
- Emerging Molecular and Computational Biomarkers in Urothelial Carcinoma: Innovations in Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Therapeutic Response Prediction.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Multimodal artificial intelligence in urologic precision oncology: from algorithm to translational medicine (a systemized narrative review).Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Innovations in Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bladder pathophysiology encompasses a wide array of disorders, including bladder cancer, interstitial cystitis, overactive and underactive bladder, and bladder outlet obstruction. It also involves conditions such as neurogenic bladder, bladder infections, trauma, and congenital anomalies. Each of these conditions presents unique challenges for diagnosis and treatment. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have shown significant potential in revolutionizing diagnostic methodologies within this domain. Objective: This review provides an updated and comprehensive examination of the integration of AI into the diagnosis of bladder pathophysiology. It highlights key AI techniques, including machine learning and deep learning, and their applications in identifying and classifying bladder conditions. The review also assesses current AI-driven diagnostic tools, their accuracy, and clinical utility. Furthermore, it explores the challenges and limitations confronted in the implementation of AI technologies, such as data quality, interpretability, and integration into clinical workflows, among others. Finally, the paper discusses future directions and advancements, proposing pathways for enhancing AI applications in bladder pathophysiology diagnosis. This review aims to provide a valuable resource for clinicians, researchers, and technologists, fostering an in-depth understanding of AI's roles and potential in transforming bladder disease diagnosis. Conclusion: While AI demonstrates considerable promise in enhancing the diagnosis of bladder pathophysiology, ongoing progresses in data quality, algorithm interpretability, and clinical integration are essential for maximizing its potential. The future of AI in bladder disease diagnosis holds great promise, with continued innovation and collaboration opening the possibility of more accurate, efficient, and personalized care for patients.
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.