ReviewCureus2026
Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Decision-Making: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Accuracy, Predictive Performance, and Clinical Outcomes.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in clinical decision-making to improve diagnostic accuracy, predictive performance, and treatment planning across multiple specialties. This systematic review evaluated the accuracy and clinical outcomes of AI-based systems compared with standard clinical practice. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, and six studies with a combined sample size of approximately 1.1 million patients and imaging datasets were included. Due to substantial heterogeneity in study populations, AI models, clinical settings, and outcome measures, a narrative synthesis was performed, and risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools. Overall, AI models demonstrated strong performance with AUC values ranging from 0.85 to 0.96, sensitivity up to 97%, and specificity up to 93%, particularly in radiology and dermatology, where performance was comparable or superior to that of clinicians. However, ICU-based predictive models showed more variability. In conclusion, AI demonstrates promising diagnostic and predictive accuracy, although the evidence is predominantly derived from retrospective studies requiring prospective validation, highlighting the need for prospective multicentre trials before routine clinical implementation.
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.