Research trends on AI in breast cancer diagnosis, and treatment over two decades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Recently, the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has significantly enhanced the diagnostic accuracy in breast cancer screening. This study aims to deliver an extensive review of the advancements in AI for breast cancer diagnosis and prognosis through a bibliometric analysis. METHODOLOGY: Therefore, this study gathered pertinent peer-reviewed research articles from the Scopus database, spanning the years 2000 to 2024. These articles were subsequently subjected to quantitative analysis and visualization through the Bibliometrix R package. Ultimately, potential areas for future research challenges were pinpointed. RESULTS: This study analyzes the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) research for breast cancer diagnosis and prognosis from 2000 to 2024, based on 2678 publications sourced from Scopus. A sharp rise in global publication trends is observed between 2018 and 2023, with 2023 producing 456 papers, indicating intensified academic focus. Leading contributors include ZHENG B, with 36 publications, and institutions like RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER and the IEO EUROPEAN INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY IRCCS. The USA leads both in publications (473) and total citations (18,530), followed by India with 289 papers. Co-occurrence analysis shows that "mammography" (3171 occurrences) and "artificial intelligence" (1691 occurrences) are among the most frequent keywords, reflecting core themes. Co-citation network analysis identifies foundational works by authors like Lecun Y. and Simonyan K. in advancing AI applications in breast cancer. Institutional and country-level collaboration analysis reveals the USA's significant partnerships with China, the UK, and Canada, driving the global research agenda in this field. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, this bibliometric review underscores the growing influence of AI, particularly deep learning, in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment research from 2000 to 2024. The United States leads the field in publications and collaborations, with India, Spain, and the Netherlands also making significant contributions. Key institutions and journals have driven advancements, with AI applications focusing on improving diagnostic imaging and early detection. However, challenges like data limitations, regulatory hurdles, and unequal global collaboration persist, requiring further interdisciplinary efforts to enhance AI integration in clinical practice.
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 | 0.010 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.039 | 0.068 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".