The Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Diagnosis of Neoplastic Diseases: A Systematic and Bibliometric Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has significantly transformed the medical field, especially in the diagnosis, treatment, and management of oncological diseases. It has had a profound impact on clinical decision-making and has enhanced the quality of life for various populations. This study aims to comprehensively assess the inherent relationship between AI and medicine and to uncover both its positive and negative implications. To achieve a comprehensive understanding, a thorough systematic review of articles was conducted, examining a total of 80 papers published between 2017 and 2023. These articles were carefully selected from well-known open-access databases, such as Scopus, IOPscience, IEEE Xplore, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and ProQuest. A key finding from this review is that the majority of research on this topic has been published in scientific journals ranked in the first-quartile (Q1), underscoring the importance and high quality of research in this field. The United States, China, India, the United Kingdom, and Canada are the foremost countries in publishing on this topic. Most of the research is published in first-quartile (Q1) journals, representing 51% of the studies. Only 1% of articles appear in third-quartile (Q3) journals. IEEE Xplore is renowned as the primary database for accessing high-impact studies in this field. Future research should prioritize investigating the long-term impact of AI on patient clinical outcomes. International collaborative research could promote innovation and fairness in the implementation of artificial intelligence (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 | 0.024 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.103 | 0.096 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".