Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40842743›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

Insights Into AI-Enabled Early Diagnosis of Oral Cancer: A Scoping Review.

Mamata Kamat, Uma V Datar, Varsha Vimal Kumar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. AI-assisted image analysis ofBioinformation · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mamata KamatOral Pathology and Microbiology, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University) Dental College and Hospital, Sangli, IND.
Uma V DatarOral Pathology and Microbiology, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University) Dental College and Hospital, Sangli, IND.
Varsha Vimal KumarOral Pathology and Microbiology, RajaRajeswari Dental College and Hospital, Bangalore, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Oral cancer (OC) remains a significant global health burden, with early detection being critical to improve prognosis and survival rates. Hence, early assessment is the primary challenge in improving OC outcomes due to gaps in specialist referrals and early diagnosis. Recently, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool to enhance the early detection of oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs) and OC. We aimed to assess the various AI techniques for early OC diagnosis by searching PubMed for articles published between January 2016 and May 2025 using terms like "artificial intelligence", "deep learning", "machine learning", and "oral cancer". Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted. Of 88 articles retrieved, 28 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies originated from Southeast Asia and employed AI methods such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs), deep CNNs, artificial neural networks (ANNs), random forests, and decision trees. Standard data inputs included photographic and mobile images, with cytology and radiographic images also used. Deep CNNs showed the highest performance concerning sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Despite variability in techniques and datasets, overall diagnostic performance was promising. The study indicates that AI tools offer a strong potential for enhancing early diagnosis, particularly in low-resource settings.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceearly detectionearly diagnosisoral cancerscoping review

Identifiers

PMID40842743
PMCPMC12365857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.