SynthesisBMC oral health2026
Diagnostic performance of convolutional neural network-based AI in detecting oral squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) based on convolutional neural network (CNN) in diagnosing oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), we carried out this systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ProQuest, Cochrane Library, and Scopus to identify relevant articles from database inception to April 2025. Studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of AI based on CNN to detect OSCC were included in this search. Statistical analyses were performed by using the Meta-Disc (version 1.4) and Stata 18.0 software.
resultsA total of 14 studies with 61,372 samples were included in the analysis. The pooled positive likelihood ratio (PLR) of 13.08 (95% CI 9.21-18.60) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of 0.06 (95% CI 0.03-0.10) were observed with a diagnostic odds ratio of 261.58 (95% CI 131.03-522.19) and the area under the curve being 0.98, respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CNN based AI in detecting OSCC were 0.94 (95% CI 0.89-0.98) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.92-0.97). Heterogeneity was observed (I² > 75%). Subgroup analyses revealed variations in diagnostic performance based on study design, cancer site, statistical method, external validation, and sample size. The Fagan nomogram indicated that when the pre-test probability was set at 20%, the post-test probability could increase to 81%.
conclusionIn detecting OSCC, CNN-based AI demonstrates a high diagnostic performance. These findings suggest that CNN models, though not yet widely implemented in routine diagnostic workflows, hold strong potential for OSCC detection. However, the current evidence is largely based on retrospective studies with limited sample sizes and methodological variability, and only one study performed external validation. Therefore, larger prospective and multicenter studies are needed before clinical translation.
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.