Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Examination for Cancer Detection in Medical Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
[OBJECTIVE] To evaluate the effectiveness of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted examination for cancer detection in medical imaging.
- 표본수 (n) 39
- 95% CI 1.17-1.28
- RR 1.22
- 연구 설계 RCT
APA
Song J, Gao Y, et al. (2026). Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Examination for Cancer Detection in Medical Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 23(4), 586-598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2025.11.003
MLA
Song J, et al.. "Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Examination for Cancer Detection in Medical Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.." Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, vol. 23, no. 4, 2026, pp. 586-598.
PMID
41241061
Abstract
[OBJECTIVE] To evaluate the effectiveness of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted examination for cancer detection in medical imaging.
[METHODS] We searched seven databases from January 1, 2017, until June 30, 2024, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcomes were detection rates and patient-centered outcomes. Pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
[RESULTS] We included 49 RCTs covering seven cancer types, with 79.6% (n = 39) being colorectal cancer. AI-assisted examination showed varying effects on detection rates across different cancer types. Specifically, regarding colorectal cancer, AI increased detection rates for both adenoma (pooled RR = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.17-1.28, 36 RCTs) and polyp (pooled RR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.14-1.26, 28 RCTs). For esophageal cancer, positive effects were also observed on the detection rates of high-risk esophageal lesions (RR = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.06-3.80, 1 RCT) as well as superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and precancerous lesions (RR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.03-1.86, 1 RCT). Moreover, statistically significant improvement in detection rates were observed in prostate cancer (pooled RR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.10-1.77, 1 RCT with 3 arms), actionable lung nodules (RR = 2.38, 95% CI: 1.25-4.55, 1 RCT) for lung cancer, and breast cancer (RR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.00-1.45, 1 RCT). However, no significant effect was observed on the detection rates of gastric or liver cancer.
[CONCLUSIONS] AI-assisted examinations may improve certain detection rates but not all among seven cancer types. There is a notable lack of patient-centered outcomes, crucial for evaluating the ultimate benefits to patients. Future research should give priority to assessing the impact of AI on patient-centered outcomes beyond diagnostic accuracy.
[METHODS] We searched seven databases from January 1, 2017, until June 30, 2024, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcomes were detection rates and patient-centered outcomes. Pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
[RESULTS] We included 49 RCTs covering seven cancer types, with 79.6% (n = 39) being colorectal cancer. AI-assisted examination showed varying effects on detection rates across different cancer types. Specifically, regarding colorectal cancer, AI increased detection rates for both adenoma (pooled RR = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.17-1.28, 36 RCTs) and polyp (pooled RR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.14-1.26, 28 RCTs). For esophageal cancer, positive effects were also observed on the detection rates of high-risk esophageal lesions (RR = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.06-3.80, 1 RCT) as well as superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and precancerous lesions (RR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.03-1.86, 1 RCT). Moreover, statistically significant improvement in detection rates were observed in prostate cancer (pooled RR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.10-1.77, 1 RCT with 3 arms), actionable lung nodules (RR = 2.38, 95% CI: 1.25-4.55, 1 RCT) for lung cancer, and breast cancer (RR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.00-1.45, 1 RCT). However, no significant effect was observed on the detection rates of gastric or liver cancer.
[CONCLUSIONS] AI-assisted examinations may improve certain detection rates but not all among seven cancer types. There is a notable lack of patient-centered outcomes, crucial for evaluating the ultimate benefits to patients. Future research should give priority to assessing the impact of AI on patient-centered outcomes beyond diagnostic accuracy.
MeSH Terms
Humans; Artificial Intelligence; Neoplasms; Diagnostic Imaging; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
같은 제1저자의 인용 많은 논문 (5)
- Clinician-deployable deep hypergraph model integrating clinical and CT radiomics predicts immunotherapy outcomes in NSCLC.
- Multi-omics genetic study revealing ferroptosis regulator CTSB driving prostate cancer progression by modulating the immune microenvironment.
- The Growing Burden of Early-Onset Lung Cancer in Young Women in China: Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.
- From Tissue Archives to Liquid Biopsy: Transfer Learning for MicroRNA-Based Lung Cancer Diagnosis.
- Riboflavin (VB2) inhibits hepatocellular carcinogenesis by enhancing retinol metabolism and suppressing cell proliferation in Hras12V transgenic mice.