ReviewCureus2025
The Application and Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence in Rhinology: A Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Rhinology: A State-of-the-Art Review of Clinical Readiness and Implementation Pathways.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, including machine learning (ML), deep learning, and large language models, are increasingly applied in medical diagnostics. In rhinology, these tools are being evaluated for tasks such as image interpretation, cytology classification, and clinical decision support. To systematically evaluate the application and diagnostic accuracy of AI technologies in rhinology, with a focus on clinical utility and implementation barriers. This review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Seventeen full-text studies were screened based on predefined eligibility criteria, focusing on AI applications with diagnostic metrics in rhinology. Data on AI type, diagnostic task, performance outcomes, and study quality were extracted and synthesized narratively. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Image-based diagnostic tools using convolutional neural networks demonstrated high accuracy (81%-99%) in nasal polyp detection, cytology classification, and computed tomography (CT) scan interpretation. ML models using patient-reported data achieved accuracies of 74.5%-85.5% for chronic rhinosinusitis prediction. Large language models like ChatGPT and Gemini were evaluated for clinical question answering, with performance exceeding 80% in some domains. Risk of bias was moderate in most primary studies, and none reported clinical integration beyond prototype stages. AI exhibits promising diagnostic accuracy across several applications in rhinology. However, significant challenges persist, including limited validation, methodological heterogeneity, and lack of clinical implementation. Future research should focus on prospective trials, explainability, and regulatory frameworks to ensure safe integration into clinical workflows.
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.