ReviewCureus2025
Comparative Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence Versus Conventional Methods for Detecting Peritoneal Metastasis in Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic 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 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.
- Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer represents a major global malignancy and a leading cause of cancer-related death. Peritoneal metastasis occurs in a significant proportion of colorectal cancer patients and is associated with markedly worse prognosis compared to other metastatic sites, with a limited median overall survival. Early detection remains challenging due to the limited sensitivity of conventional imaging techniques, with computed tomography exhibiting poor detection rates for small lesions and necessitating invasive diagnostic procedures for accurate diagnosis. The limitations of traditional diagnostic modalities have driven a growing interest in artificial intelligence applications to advance the early, non-invasive detection of peritoneal metastasis. This study aimed to systematically assess whether artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches enhance the accuracy and efficiency of detecting peritoneal metastasis and predicting tumor spread patterns compared to conventional imaging and clinical assessment methods in patients with colorectal cancer. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, searching the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, and Scopus databases for studies published between 2015 and 2025. The search strategy included comprehensive terminology related to artificial intelligence and machine learning, combined with terms related to peritoneal metastasis. Two independent reviewers assessed study quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool for diagnostic accuracy studies and the modified Radiomics Quality Score for artificial intelligence (AI) and radiomics studies, with disagreements resolved through consensus discussions. From multiple countries, 22 studies were included with a total population of over 40,000 patients. AI applications consistently outperformed traditional methods across all modalities. While conventional approaches showed moderate performance with C-indices of 0.73-0.85 and CT imaging missed 89% of small lesions, AI-assisted systems demonstrated superior results as follows: cytological detection achieved over 95% accuracy and 99% specificity; radiomics models reached AUCs up to 0.941; circulating tumor DNA integration provided 8.5-fold increased risk identification; and computer-assisted staging laparoscopy improved surgical diagnostic accuracy from 52% to 79% compared to human assessment alone. AI technologies demonstrate promising advantages for peritoneal metastasis detection, offering enhanced diagnostic accuracy, objective assessments, faster analysis, and improved clinical decision-making, particularly through human-AI collaboration. However, most studies lack external validation across diverse populations and real-world settings, while current implementations face significant workflow challenges. Before clinical adoption, future research must prioritize large-scale prospective validation studies, external validation across diverse populations, and comprehensive cost-effectiveness analyses to ensure safe and effective integration into clinical practice.
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.