Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42494731›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026

Pre-analytical reporting in AI-assisted cervical cytology: a scoping review of data acquisition documentation.

Alina Elena Sultana, Răzvan George Condorovici, Ştefana Duţă, Andra Laura Dobre, Corina Elena Petean

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Alina Elena SultanaDepartment of Applied Electronics and Information Engineering, National University of Science and Technology POLITEHNICA Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania.
Răzvan George CondoroviciDepartment of Applied Electronics and Information Engineering, National University of Science and Technology POLITEHNICA Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania.
Ştefana DuţăDepartment of Applied Electronics and Information Engineering, National University of Science and Technology POLITEHNICA Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania.
Andra Laura DobreDepartment of Applied Electronics and Information Engineering, National University of Science and Technology POLITEHNICA Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania.
Corina Elena PeteanDepartment of Applied Electronics and Information Engineering, National University of Science and Technology POLITEHNICA Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) models for cervical cytology screening have achieved pooled accuracy and sensitivity values exceeding 90% in recent meta-analyses, and several commercial systems are now in clinical use. However, whether these results generalize across laboratories, scanners, and clinical settings depends on pre-analytical factors-sample preparation, staining, digitization, and annotation-that are known to introduce substantial variability into the data that models consume. This scoping review assessed how consistently these factors are documented in the cervical cytology AI literature. We examined 28 datasets published between 2005 and 2025, extracting information on 16 pre-analytical variables spanning sample preparation, digitization, and annotation. The mean reporting completeness was 11.4 out of 16 variables (71.2%). Digitization was the weakest category (mean 60.2%), with scanning mode unreported in 57.1% of datasets, image file format in 60.7%, and color normalization status in 78.6%. Staining protocol was mentioned by 75.0% of datasets but described in sufficient procedural detail by only 7.1%. Quantitative inter-annotator agreement was provided by 14.3% of datasets, despite well-documented inter-observer variability in cervical cytology. Notably, the variables with the lowest reporting rates correspond to those identified in the digital pathology literature as the most significant sources of AI model performance variability. To address this gap, we propose PRECY-AI (Pre-analytical Reporting Checklist for Cervical Cytology AI), a 16-item checklist of essential and recommended reporting items designed to complement existing general-purpose guidelines such as TRIPOD+AI and CLAIM. Adoption of domain-specific pre-analytical reporting standards could improve the reproducibility, comparability, and clinical translatability of cervical cytology AI research.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecervical cytologydigital pathologypre-analytical variabilityPRECY-AIreporting qualityreproducibilityscoping review

Identifiers

PMID42494731
PMCPMC13391408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.