ArticleRevista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia2025
Advances in artificial intelligence for the early detection of cervical cancer in adult women: a scoping review.
Article in Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A bibliometric analysis and visualization of trends in cervical cancer screening technologies based on dual-database analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Predictive modeling for cervical cancer: existing AI approaches and the emerging role of vaginal microbiome.Frontiers in network physiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To synthesize current scientific evidence on the benefits and potential contributions of integrating AI-based technologies with traditional diagnostic methods used for the detection and early diagnosis of cervical cancer in adult women. Methods: An exhaustive search was conducted in academic databases (PubMed, Scopus and BIREME) using specific search terms and Boolean operators in December 2024. Independently conducted by three researchers across all databases, the selection process included articles involving adult women with either suspected or confirmed cervical cancer, in which the application of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies was examined across various techniques used for early diagnosis of the disease, such as cytology, colposcopy, and radiological imaging, among others. Only articles published between 1999 and 2022 were included. The included articles were reviewed in full text by all authors, and relevant data were extracted and organized into a chart comprising the following items: author and year of publication, title, study design, type of AI technology used, and a summary of the content. Results: AI, particularly through Machine Learning (ML) algorithms, demonstrated significant improvements in the accuracy, sensitivity, and efficiency of cervical lesion classification when combined with conventional diagnostic techniques like cervical cytology, colposcopy, and biopsy. This combined approach outperformed traditional methods used in isolation. Conclusion: The integration of AI with standard cervical cancer screening and diagnostic methods offers substantial benefits, including faster detection times, reduced workload for pathologists, and improved patient outcomes by facilitating earlier treatment initiation and reducing diagnostic variability. Considering the available literature, the use of AI may offer potential benefits; however, further studies are required.
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.