Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41409960›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

Artificial Intelligence as a Tool in the Diagnosis of Bladder Cancer: A Narrative Review.

Sundas Ishtiaq, Khalid Farouk

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sundas IshtiaqDepartment of Urology, Fauji Foundation Hospital and Foundation University Medical College, Islamabad, PAK.
Khalid FaroukDepartment of Urology, Fauji Foundation Hospital and Foundation University Medical College, Islamabad, PAK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is emerging as a transformative tool in the diagnosis of bladder cancer, offering the potential to enhance accuracy, consistency, and early detection. This narrative review aimed to summarize and critically appraise recent developments in AI applications across diagnostic modalities, based on studies identified through PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar up to April 2025. Evidence shows that deep learning algorithms applied to cystoscopy improve lesion detection, including subtle flat and early-stage tumors that may be overlooked by conventional assessment. In histopathology and cytology, AI systems contribute to grading, classification, and identification of malignant features with accuracy comparable to expert pathologists. Integration of AI with urinary biomarkers and genomic data further supports personalized risk prediction and molecular characterization. Additionally, AI-driven clinical decision support tools assist in prognosis, treatment planning, and post-therapy surveillance. While current findings underscore AI's promising role in improving diagnostic precision and workflow efficiency, its clinical adoption requires addressing issues of data quality, algorithm transparency, and ethical governance. Future research should focus on developing explainable and validated models through multicenter collaborations between clinicians and data scientists to facilitate safe and reliable integration of AI into routine bladder cancer diagnosis.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecystoscopyhistopathologymachine learningurinary bladder neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID41409960
PMCPMC12706820

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.