SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
Image-based artificial intelligence for preoperative differentiation of pancreatic cancer from pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pancreatic cancer (PC) and pancreatitis-encompassing acute, chronic, autoimmune, and other inflammatory pancreatic conditions-often exhibit overlapping clinical and imaging features, yet require fundamentally different therapeutic strategies. This similarity frequently leads to diagnostic uncertainty in routine clinical practice. Image-based artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool to enhance diagnostic accuracy. This meta-analysis systematically evaluates the diagnostic performance of AI algorithms in differentiating PC from pancreatitis. Methods: A systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted for studies published through June 30 2025. Eligible studies reporting AI diagnostic performance metrics were selected. Methodological rigor was assessed using the modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Pooled sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive/negative likelihood ratios (+LR/-LR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves were derived using Stata 17.0 software. Results: Twenty-five eligible studies (3279 patients) were ultimately eligible for data extraction, of which sixty-eight tables were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled SEN was 89% (95% CI: 87-90%), SPE was 88% (95% CI: 86-90%), and AUC was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96) in 28 included studies with 76 contingency tables, however, substantial heterogeneity was observed among the included studies, with I² = 77.14% in SEN and I² = 75.61% in SPE. The pooled SEN and SPE were 91% (95% CI: 88-93%) and 90% (95% CI: 87-93%), with an AUC of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.97) in 28 included studies with 28 best diagnosis performance tables. Analysis for different algorithms revealed a pooled SEN of 89% (95%CI: 86-90%) and SPE of 88% (95%CI: 86-90%) for machine learning, and a pooled SEN of 89% (95%CI: 82-93%) and SPE of 85% (95%CI: 76-91%) for deep learning. Subsequent subgroup analysis suggested that part of the heterogeneity might be explained by differences in Algorithm, Imaging Modality, Publication Geographical, and Year of publication. Conclusion: AI-based image analysis demonstrates strong diagnostic performance in distinguishing PC from pancreatitis, exceeding thresholds typically achieved with conventional imaging alone. These findings support the potential integration of AI into clinical decision-support workflows to improve the preoperative evaluation of pancreatic lesions. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42024529580.
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.