Existing trends and applications of artificial intelligence in urothelial cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in urology is gaining significant traction. While previous reviews of AI applications in urology exist, there have been few attempts to synthesize existing literature on urothelial cancer (UC). METHODS: Comprehensive searches based on the concepts of "AI" and "urothelial cancer" were conducted in MEDLINE , EMBASE , Web of Science, and Scopus. Study selection and data abstraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. Two independent raters assessed study quality in a random sample of 25 studies with the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST) and the standardized reporting of machine learning applications in urology (STREAM-URO) framework. RESULTS: From a database search of 4581 studies, 227 were included. By area of research, 33% focused on image analysis, 26% on genomics, 16% on radiomics, and 15% on clinicopathology. Thematic content analysis identified qualitative trends in AI models employed and variables for feature extraction. Only 19% of studies compared performance of AI models to non-AI methods. All selected studies demonstrated high risk of bias for analysis and overall concern with Cohen's kappa (k)=0.68. Selected studies met 66% of STREAM-URO items, with k=0.76. CONCLUSIONS: The use of AI in UC is a topic of increasing importance; however, there is a need for improved standardized reporting, as evidenced by the high risk of bias and low methodologic quality identified in the included studies.
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 | 0.100 | 0.220 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.035 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".