ReviewCureus2025
Leveraging Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence in Cancer Diagnostics Imaging: 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.
- Artificial Intelligence in the Detection, Characterization, and Management of Renal Masses: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in respiratory medicine: From diagnosis to treatment and future directions.Chinese medical journal pulmonary and critical care medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly applied in oncology to enhance cancer detection, diagnosis, and treatment planning. Despite this progress, uncertainty remains regarding the robustness and generalizability of current AI applications in cancer imaging and pathology. This systematic review evaluated the evidence on AI applications in cancer imaging and pathology, synthesizing findings on their effectiveness, limitations, and implications for clinical practice. The review synthesized evidence from studies evaluating AI systems in cancer imaging and pathology, focusing on diagnostic performance, clinical utility, and methodological limitations. The review found that AI consistently demonstrated strong diagnostic performance across cancer types and imaging modalities, often matching or surpassing clinician accuracy. These systems showed particular promise in early cancer detection and decision support, with potential to reduce human error and support more personalized treatment strategies. However, limitations were evident: most studies lacked real-world clinical validation, integration with genomic and multimodal patient data was weak, and underrepresentation of minority groups raised concerns about generalizability and algorithmic bias. Moreover, issues of transparency, explainability, and ethical acceptability remain unresolved. The findings suggest that AI could function as an effective triage and decision-support tool in oncology, but safe and equitable implementation requires addressing current gaps in data diversity, validation, and clinical workflow integration. Future research should prioritize prospective studies in diverse populations and settings, ensuring that AI systems can be trusted and effectively embedded into routine cancer care for older adults.
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.