ReviewCureus2025
AI in Digital Pathology for Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma: A Systematic Review of Diagnosis and Classification.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Oncology: A Comprehensive Cross-Cancer Translational Readiness Analysis Across 18 Malignancies.Cancers · 2026Review
- Application of artificial intelligence in differentiating IgG4-related ophthalmic disease and orbital MALT lymphoma: a review of radiomics and deep learning advances.Frontiers in immunology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) remains the most common and heterogeneous type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Accurate diagnosis is crucial but intensive. AI has emerged in the field as a potential to support the digital pathology workflow. This study is a systematic review of the performance and clinical utility of AI applied to digital pathology and classification of DLBCL through articles published from 2020 to 2025. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. A total of 734 records were screened, and 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. QUADAS-2 and risk-of-bias VISualization(robvis) were used to assess bias. Data extraction included AI model architecture, diagnostic tasks, validation methods, and performance metrics. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria, employing architectures such as convolutional neural networks, multiple instance learning, Vision Transformers, EfficientNet, U-Net, and HoVer-Net. Diagnostic metrics were consistently high: accuracies ranged from 87% to 100%, sensitivities from 90% to 100%, specificities from 52% to 100%, and area under the curve values up to 0.999. Several models outperformed pathologists in speed and precision, particularly in biomarker quantification and MYC rearrangement prediction. Risk of bias was low in index tests and reference standards, but patient selection was frequently rated as of high concern. AI-driven digital pathology demonstrates strong classification and diagnostic potential for DLBCL, achieving high accuracy across diverse methods and datasets. However, selection bias, limited external validation, and lack of standardization remain barriers. Continued research with multicenter, prospective validation is needed before routine clinical integration. Further research and standardization are needed for broader clinical integration in the field of digital pathology.
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.