ReviewCureus2026
Evaluating the Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence Models for Early Lung Cancer Detection: Evidence From a Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, with early detection critical for improving outcomes. While low-dose computed tomography (CT) screening has demonstrated mortality benefits, its implementation is constrained by high false-positive rates and inter-observer variability. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool to enhance diagnostic accuracy. This systematic review evaluates the accuracy of AI models for early lung cancer detection. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Embase, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Xplore for studies published between January 2021 and December 2025 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies evaluating AI models for early lung cancer detection using imaging modalities were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2) tool. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. AI models, predominantly convolutional neural networks, demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy across CT, chest X-ray, and histopathology imaging. Accuracy ranged from 75.2% to 99.17%, with sensitivities between 80% and 100% and specificities from 58.7% to 98.03%. Several studies reported AI performance comparable to or exceeding that of radiologists. Ensemble and hybrid models consistently outperformed single-architecture approaches. Quality assessment revealed moderate to high methodological quality overall. AI models achieve high diagnostic accuracy for early lung cancer detection, with performance often comparable to that of radiologists. AI is best positioned as a complementary tool to augment human expertise. Future research should prioritize prospective designs, external validation, and standardized reporting.
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.