Predicting non-muscle invasive bladder cancer outcomes using artificial intelligence: a systematic review using APPRAISE-AI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate prediction of recurrence and progression in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is essential to inform management and eligibility for clinical trials. Despite substantial interest in developing artificial intelligence (AI) applications in NMIBC, their clinical readiness remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to critically appraise AI studies predicting NMIBC outcomes, and to identify common methodological and reporting pitfalls. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception to February 5th, 2024 for AI studies predicting NMIBC recurrence or progression. APPRAISE-AI was used to assess methodological and reporting quality of these studies. Performance between AI and non-AI approaches included within these studies were compared. A total of 15 studies (five on recurrence, four on progression, and six on both) were included. All studies were retrospective, with a median follow-up of 71 months (IQR 32-93) and median cohort size of 125 (IQR 93-309). Most studies were low quality, with only one classified as high quality. While AI models generally outperformed non-AI approaches with respect to accuracy, c-index, sensitivity, and specificity, this margin of benefit varied with study quality (median absolute performance difference was 10 for low, 22 for moderate, and 4 for high quality studies). Common pitfalls included dataset limitations, heterogeneous outcome definitions, methodological flaws, suboptimal model evaluation, and reproducibility issues. Recommendations to address these challenges are proposed. These findings emphasise the need for collaborative efforts between urological and AI communities paired with rigorous methodologies to develop higher quality models, enabling AI to reach its potential in enhancing NMIBC care.
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 | 0.019 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; 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".