ReviewCureus2025
Artificial Intelligence in the Diagnosis of Cholesteatoma: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence.
Review in Cureus, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review evaluated the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in the imaging-based diagnosis of cholesteatoma. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to September 2025 identified 8,160 records, of which 7 studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies used temporal bone CT, one investigated otoscopic images, and one assessed CT-based staging of mastoid extension. Reported internal validation accuracies were generally high (>90%), particularly with convolutional neural network (CNN) architectures, while external validations showed moderate performance (78-88%). A multicenter 3D convolutional neural network (CNN) with automated region-of-interest detection demonstrated consistent generalizability and aided surgical planning in prospective testing. The otoscopy-based model achieved high accuracy for differentiating cholesteatoma from normal membranes (>98%), though performance decreased when distinguishing it from other middle ear pathologies. Across studies, AI models often performed comparably to human readers, and explainability tools highlighted relevant diagnostic features. Most studies were retrospective and single-center, with limited external validation. Overall, AI shows strong potential for cholesteatoma diagnosis using CT and otoscopic imaging, but multicenter prospective studies with standardized evaluation and clinical impact assessment are needed before routine implementation.
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.