ReviewCancers2025
Application of Artificial Intelligence in Pancreatic Cyst Management: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cancers, 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.
- From Bench to Bedside: The Path Toward Real-World Translation for Artificial Intelligence in Pancreatic Cancer Detection.Korean journal of radiology · 2026Review
- Factors Associated with Stage at Diagnosis in Pancreatic Cancer: Implications for Precision Screening and Early Detection.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Mucinous vs. non-mucinous pancreatic cysts: diagnostic keys on CT and MRI.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in IPMN diagnosis: bridging promise and clinical reality.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Pancreatobiliary Endoscopy: Current Advances, Opportunities, and Challenges.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs), including intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) and mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCNs), pose a diagnostic challenge due to their variable malignant potential. Current guidelines, such as Fukuoka and American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), have moderate predictive accuracy and may lead to overtreatment or missed malignancies. Artificial intelligence (AI), incorporating machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), offers the potential to improve risk stratification, diagnosis, and management of PCLs by integrating clinical, radiological, and molecular data. This is the first systematic review to evaluate the application, performance, and clinical utility of AI models in the diagnosis, classification, prognosis, and management of pancreatic cysts.
methodsA systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251008593). Databases searched included PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library up to March 2025. The inclusion criteria encompassed original studies employing AI, ML, or DL in human subjects with pancreatic cysts, evaluating diagnostic, classification, or prognostic outcomes. Data were extracted on the study design, imaging modality, model type, sample size, performance metrics (accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC)), and validation methods. Study quality and bias were assessed using the PROBAST and adherence to TRIPOD reporting guidelines.
resultsFrom 847 records, 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most were retrospective observational (n = 27, 87%) and focused on preoperative diagnostic applications (n = 30, 97%), with only one addressing prognosis. Imaging modalities included Computed Tomography (CT) (48%), endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) (26%), and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) (9.7%). Neural networks, particularly convolutional neural networks (CNNs), were the most common AI models (n = 16), followed by logistic regression (n = 4) and support vector machines (n = 3). The median reported AUC across studies was 0.912, with 55% of models achieving AUC ≥ 0.80. The models outperformed clinicians or existing guidelines in 11 studies. IPMN stratification and subtype classification were common focuses, with CNN-based EUS models achieving accuracies of up to 99.6%. Only 10 studies (32%) performed external validation. The risk of bias was high in 93.5% of studies, and TRIPOD adherence averaged 48%.
conclusionsAI demonstrates strong potential in improving the diagnosis and risk stratification of pancreatic cysts, with several models outperforming current clinical guidelines and human readers. However, widespread clinical adoption is hindered by high risk of bias, lack of external validation, and limited interpretability of complex models. Future work should prioritise multicentre prospective studies, standardised model reporting, and development of interpretable, externally validated tools to support clinical integration.
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.