ReviewCancers2026
The Efficacy of Electronic Health Record-Based Artificial Intelligence Models for Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe persistently low 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer (PC) underscores the critical need for early detection. However, population-wide screening remains impractical. Artificial Intelligence (AI) models using electronic health record (EHR) data offer a promising avenue for pre-symptomatic risk stratification.
objectiveTo systematically review and meta-analyze the performance of AI models for PC prediction based exclusively on structured EHR data.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, MedRxiv, BioRxiv, and Google Scholar (2010-2025). Inclusion criteria encompassed studies using EHR-derived data (excluding imaging/genomics), applying AI for PC prediction, reporting AUC, and including a non-cancer cohort. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for AUC, sensitivity (Se), and specificity (Sp) using R software version 4.5.1. Heterogeneity was assessed using I
resultsOf 946 screened records, 19 studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled AUC across all models was 0.785 (95% CI: 0.759-0.810), indicating good overall discriminatory ability. Neural Network (NN) models demonstrated a statistically significantly higher pooled AUC (0.826) compared to Logistic Regression (LogReg, 0.799), Random Forests (RF, 0.762), and XGBoost (XGB, 0.779) (all
conclusionsAI models using EHR data show significant promise for early PC detection, with NNs achieving the highest pooled AUC. However, high heterogeneity and typically low PPV highlight the need for standardized methodologies and a targeted risk-stratification approach rather than general population screening. Future prospective validation and integration into clinical decision-support systems are essential.
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.