Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41595166›Full record

ReviewCancers2026

Artificial Intelligence in Oncologic Thoracic Surgery: Clinical Decision Support and Emerging Applications.

Francesco Petrella, Stefania Rizzo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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.

Francesco PetrellaDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, 20900 Monza, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5945-1576
Stefania RizzoClinic of Radiology EOC, Via Tesserete 46, 6900 Lugano, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-5151-0866

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping thoracic surgery, advancing from decision support to the threshold of autonomous intervention. AI-driven technologies-including machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), and computer vision-have demonstrated significant improvements in diagnostic accuracy, surgical planning, intraoperative navigation, and postoperative outcome prediction. In lung cancer and thoracic oncology, AI enhances imaging analysis, histopathological classification, and risk stratification, supporting multidisciplinary decision-making and personalized therapy. Robotic-assisted and AI-guided systems are optimizing surgical precision and workflow efficiency, while real-time decision-support tools and augmented reality are improving intraoperative safety. Despite these advances, widespread adoption is limited by challenges in algorithmic bias, data integration, regulatory approval, and ethical transparency. The literature emphasizes the need for multicenter validation, explainable AI, and robust governance frameworks to ensure safe and effective clinical integration. Future research should focus on digital twin technology, federated learning, and transparent AI outputs to further enhance reliability and accessibility. AI is poised to transform thoracic surgery, but responsible implementation and ongoing evaluation are essential for realizing its full potential. The aim of this review is to evaluate and synthesize the current landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) applications across the thoracic surgical pathway, from preoperative decision-support to intraoperative guidance and emerging autonomous interventions.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencediagnosislung cancerpatient outcomesthoracic surgery

Identifiers

PMID41595166
PMCPMC12838603

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.