SynthesisMedicine2026
Artificial intelligence for acute appendicitis diagnosis: A systematic review of current evidence, challenges, and future directions.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advances and uncertainties in fat embolism syndrome: a review.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute appendicitis remains one of the most common surgical emergencies, yet its diagnosis continues to pose challenges due to overlapping clinical presentations and variable imaging findings. Artificial intelligence (AI) has recently emerged as a promising tool to enhance diagnostic accuracy, assist clinical decision-making, and potentially reduce negative appendectomy rates.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for English-language studies published between January 2015 and September 2025. Search terms included "artificial intelligence," "machine learning," "deep learning," and "acute appendicitis." Eligible studies focused on diagnostic model development or validation using clinical, laboratory, or imaging data. Extracted parameters included study design, AI algorithm, input modality, and diagnostic performance metrics (area under the curve [AUC], accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values). Because of study heterogeneity, a qualitative synthesis was performed instead of a meta-analysis.
resultsClinical- and laboratory-based AI models frequently outperformed traditional scoring systems, demonstrating high negative predictive value and AUCs ranging from 0.85 to 0.93. Deep learning models applied to computed tomography imaging achieved the highest diagnostic accuracy, often exceeding junior radiologists, with reported AUCs up to 0.96. Ultrasound-based AI frameworks improved operator-independent detection, while magnetic resonance imaging-AI studies remain limited but promising. Hybrid multimodal models integrating clinical, laboratory, and imaging data achieved balanced performance (AUC ≈ 0.90-0.93) and hold the greatest translational potential. However, most studies were retrospective, single-center, with insufficient external validation and inconsistent methodological reporting.
conclusionAI demonstrates substantial potential to enhance diagnostic workflows for suspected appendicitis, particularly for identifying complicated cases and minimizing unnecessary imaging or surgery. Future research should emphasize multicenter prospective validation, standardized data annotation, explainable AI methods, and seamless integration into electronic health records and picture archiving systems.
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.