SynthesisFrontiers in dental medicine2026
Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence in oral squamous cell carcinoma detection: a higher-order evidence synthesis through umbrella review and meta-meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in dental medicine, 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
Background: The integration of AI into oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) diagnostics is a major milestone for digital dentistry and computational pathology, enabling faster, highly accurate detection. While numerous systematic reviews have attempted to synthesize this burgeoning evidence, their conclusions remain discordant and methodological quality varies substantially. Aim: This umbrella review undertakes a rigorous synthesis of systematic review evidence to establish definitive accuracy metrics, evaluate methodological robustness, quantify evidence redundancy, and delineate critical implementation barriers. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception through September 30, 2025, following PRISMA guidelines and an Results: Fifteen systematic reviews synthesizing 341 primary studies were included. AMSTAR-2 assessment revealed a concerning distribution: only 3 reviews (20%) achieved high confidence, while 3 (20%) were critically low. Moderate primary study overlap was evident (CCA = 9.06%). The meta-meta-analysis, incorporating data from six reviews, yielded a pooled sensitivity of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.81-0.99; I Conclusions: AI demonstrated compelling diagnostic accuracy for OSCC, particularly when applied to histopathological specimens. However, the evidence base is compromised by significant heterogeneity, methodological inconsistency, and a critical deficit in implementation research. This synthesis provided an authoritative evidence foundation and a strategic roadmap for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers navigating the evolving landscape of AI in oral oncology. Clinical relevance: The integration of AI into routine clinical practice may assist clinicians in identifying suspicious lesions at earlier stages, improving diagnostic consistency, reducing inter-observer variability, and supporting timely referral and treatment decisions. Furthermore, AI-driven tools can facilitate large-scale screening programs, particularly in resource-constrained settings where access to specialist expertise may be limited. Although promising, successful clinical implementation requires rigorous validation, standardization of algorithms, transparency in decision-making processes, and evaluation of real-world effectiveness to ensure safe, reliable, and equitable patient care. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO [CRD420251157762].
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.