Advancements in Oncology with Artificial Intelligence—A Review Article
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Well-trained machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) systems can provide clinicians with therapeutic assistance, potentially increasing efficiency and improving efficacy. ML has demonstrated high accuracy in oncology-related diagnostic imaging, including screening mammography interpretation, colon polyp detection, glioma classification, and grading. By utilizing ML techniques, the manual steps of detecting and segmenting lesions are greatly reduced. ML-based tumor imaging analysis is independent of the experience level of evaluating physicians, and the results are expected to be more standardized and accurate. One of the biggest challenges is its generalizability worldwide. The current detection and screening methods for colon polyps and breast cancer have a vast amount of data, so they are ideal areas for studying the global standardization of artificial intelligence. Central nervous system cancers are rare and have poor prognoses based on current management standards. ML offers the prospect of unraveling undiscovered features from routinely acquired neuroimaging for improving treatment planning, prognostication, monitoring, and response assessment of CNS tumors such as gliomas. By studying AI in such rare cancer types, standard management methods may be improved by augmenting personalized/precision medicine. This review aims to provide clinicians and medical researchers with a basic understanding of how ML works and its role in oncology, especially in breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and primary and metastatic brain cancer. Understanding AI basics, current achievements, and future challenges are crucial in advancing the use of AI in oncology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".