ReviewCancer causes & control : CCC2025
Evolution and integration of artificial intelligence across the cancer continuum in women: advances in risk assessment, prevention, and early detection.
Review in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeArtificial Intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing the prevention and control of breast cancer by improving risk assessment, prevention, and early diagnosis. Considering an emphasis on AI applications across the women's breast cancer spectrum, this review summarizes developments, existing applications, and future potential prospects.
methodsWe conducted an in-depth review of the literature on AI applications in breast cancer risk prediction, prevention, and early detection from 2000 to 2025, with particular emphasis on Explainable AI (XAI), deep learning (DL), and machine learning (ML). We examined algorithmic fairness, model transparency, dataset representation, and clinical performance indicators.
findingsAs compared to traditional methods, AI-based models continuously enhanced risk categorization, screening sensitivity, and early detection (AUCs ranging from 0.65 to 0.975). However, challenges remain in algorithmic bias, underrepresentation of minority populations, and limited external validation. Remarkably, 58% of public datasets focused on mammography, leaving gaps in modalities such as tomosynthesis and histopathology.
conclusionsAI technologies have an enormous number of opportunities for enhancing the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. However, transparent models, inclusive datasets, and standardized frameworks for explainability and external validation should be given the greatest attention in subsequent studies to ensure equitable and effective implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40833534What 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.