SynthesisWorld journal of urology2026
Artificial intelligence in the radiologic diagnosis of major urological cancers: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of urology, 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.
- Comment on 'Artificial intelligence in the radiologic diagnosis of major urological cancers: a meta-analysis'.World journal of urology · 2026Article
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
Abstract
objectiveGiven the pivotal role of imaging in diagnosing urological cancers, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool to improve diagnostic accuracy and reliability. This study systematically evaluates the diagnostic performance of AI models in radiologic imaging of urological cancers.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in four electronic databases up to June 2026 to identify studies that applied AI algorithms for the diagnosis of urological cancers using CT, MRI, or ultrasound. Eligible studies reported diagnostic accuracy metrics for AI models, with clinician comparator data extracted when available. A bivariate random-effects model was used to pool sensitivity, specificity, and AUC values. Subgroup analyses were conducted to examine diagnostic performance across different cancer types and imaging modalities, and to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.
resultsA total of 110 studies were included in the meta-analysis. AI models achieved pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.83-0.87) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.80-0.86), with an AUC of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88-0.93). Clinicians demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.79-0.85) and specificity of 0.68 (95% CI: 0.62-0.73), with an AUC of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.80-0.86). Subgroup analyses indicated that AI models showed overall diagnostic advantages across cancer types and imaging modalities, particularly in specificity, AUC, and diagnostic odds ratios, although clinicians demonstrated higher sensitivity in the prostate cancer and MRI subgroups.
conclusionAI models demonstrate strong diagnostic performance across various urological cancers and imaging modalities, showing potential as supportive tools in radiological workflows. Further prospective, standardized, and multi-center evaluations are warranted to confirm AI's clinical utility across diverse diagnostic tasks in urological oncology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42545470What 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.