ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2025
The role of AI models in enhancing choledocholithiasis diagnosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate choledocholithiasis (CDL) diagnosis is essential to avoid delayed treatment, prevent complications and reduce unnecessary interventions. Traditional guidelines aid in risk stratification but may lack precision. Notably, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) offer innovative tools that may enhance the accuracy and timeliness of CDL prediction. The present study aimed to systematically evaluate the diagnostic performance of AI-assisted tools in predicting CDL and to compare it to traditional guideline-based methods. A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Web of Science, identifying 578 studies. After screening and application of the inclusion criteria, 11 studies were analyzed. A bivariate random-effects model was used to pool sensitivity, specificity and positive likelihood ratios (LR+). Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves were also generated. Meta-analysis showed an overall high pool sensitivity and specificity of AI-assisted models: 83.2% [95% confidence interval (CI): 68.9; 91.8] and 91.1% [95% CI: 84.7; 95.0], respectively. The LR+ from the common effect model was 8.39 [95% CI: 7.4; 9.5], suggesting that AI models have a moderately strong ability to predict CDL. AI models demonstrated higher diagnostic performance than traditional American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines, as evidenced by SROC comparisons. In conclusion, AI-assisted tools show promise in enhancing CDL diagnosis through high sensitivity and specificity. Innovative AI and ML tools may serve as predictive tools and therapeutic decision-support systems deserving further clinical validation.
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.