ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Artificial intelligence and radiomics in bladder cancer MRI: a scoping review of applications, performance, and barriers to clinical translation.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 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.
- The Current Status and Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence in Bladder Cancer: Clinical Applications and Research.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) and radiomics show significant potential to augment bladder cancer (BC) MRI but face a critical translational gap. This scoping review of 79 studies maps a rapidly growing field dominated by retrospective, single-center designs lacking external validation. While diagnostic performance for staging is promising (AUC up to 0.99 in ideal settings), robust multi-center studies report more realistic AUCs of 0.85-0.95, positioning AI as a complement to VI-RADS, especially for equivocal cases. Evidence supports integration via simplified protocols (T2w-only) and workflow tools. However, systemic barriers impede progress: poor reporting transparency, a near-total absence of prospective utility trials, and a narrow focus on pre-treatment diagnosis. The current evidence suggests a high risk of translational stagnation. Realizing the transformative potential requires a fundamental reorientation toward rigorous, multi-center evaluation and transparency. Priorities must include mandatory adherence to reporting standards (TRIPOD + AI), the creation of public multi-center benchmarks, and a redesign of validation paradigms to prioritize prospective studies measuring clinical utility - such as impact on treatment decisions - over retrospective diagnostic accuracy alone. Only by prioritizing transparency, interdisciplinary collaboration, and patient-centered outcomes can AI evolve from a promising research instrument into a reliable clinical tool for BC management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41874614What 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.