Artificial Intelligence for Cancer Detection—A Bibliometric Analysis and Avenues for Future Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After cardiovascular diseases, cancer is responsible for the most deaths worldwide. Detecting a cancer disease early improves the chances for healing significantly. One group of technologies that is increasingly applied for detecting cancer is artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence has great potential to support clinicians and medical practitioners as it allows for the early detection of carcinomas. During recent years, research on artificial intelligence for cancer detection grew a lot. Within this article, we conducted a bibliometric study of the existing research dealing with the application of artificial intelligence in cancer detection. We analyzed 6450 articles on that topic that were published between 1986 and 2022. By doing so, we were able to give an overview of this research field, including its key topics, relevant outlets, institutions, and articles. Based on our findings, we developed a future research agenda that can help to advance research on artificial intelligence for cancer detection. In summary, our study is intended to serve as a platform and foundation for researchers that are interested in the potential of artificial intelligence for detecting cancer.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.045 | 0.059 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".