ArticleInsights into imaging2026
Chinese expert concern and consensus on applications of artificial intelligence in clinical cancer imaging.
Article in Insights into imaging, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) demonstrates potential throughout the cancer care continuum, with evidence supporting its application in medical imaging for detection, staging, treatment planning, and prognostic evaluation. However, clinical translation is hindered by challenges, data curation and annotation, model interpretability, generalizability, and integration into workflows. To address these barriers and provide guidance, a national multidisciplinary expert panel in China developed this consensus. A modified Delphi approach was employed to achieve expert consensus, involving 81 specialists in radiology, nuclear medicine, oncology, and imaging AI from university hospitals across China. These experts completed a survey containing 30 core statements addressing AI applications in clinical cancer imaging, spanning cancer screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment planning, response assessment, prognostic prediction, data governance, and implementation. Consensus was defined as a mean score ≥ 7 on a 9-point Likert scale, with ≥ 80% of experts scoring ≥ 7. All 30 statements fulfilled these thresholds, with mean scores ranging from 8.06 to 8.58 and the proportion of experts scoring ≥ 7 ranging from 86% to 98%. This expert consensus summarizes key AI application scenarios in cancer imaging and delivers recommendations on data acquisition and annotation, model development and validation, interpretability, multicenter generalizability, privacy-preserving collaboration, clinical workflow integration, and post-deployment monitoring, while contextualizing these statements across major clinical application domains and key implementation challenges in practice. It further identifies priority research directions, including the integration of multimodal and multi-omics data, longitudinal modeling of treatment response, and prospective validation in clinical settings, to support the safe, effective implementation of AI technologies in cancer imaging. KEY POINTS: Question AI translation in oncologic imaging remains constrained by limitations in rigorous validation, actionable interpretability, standardization, governance, and workflow integration. Findings Eighty-one Chinese experts reached consensus on 30 clinically practical statements covering AI applications from early detection to deployment. Critical relevance statement Recommendations highlight expert-supervised labeling, multicenter validation, subgroup evaluation, interpretable outputs, privacy-secured collaboration, integrated workflows, and post-implementation surveillance.
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.