Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of AI-Assisted Mammography and the Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index in Breast Cancer: Diagnostic and Prognostic Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Breast cancer remains a significant global health burden, demanding continuous innovation in diagnostic and prognostic tools. This meta-analysis and systematic review aims to synthesize evidence from 2015 to 2025 regarding the diagnostic utility of artificial intelligence (AI) in mammography and the prognostic value of the Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index (SII) in breast cancer patients. Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus. Studies evaluating AI performance in mammographic breast cancer detection and those assessing the prognostic significance of SII (based on routine hematologic parameters) were included. The risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2 and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Meta-analyses were conducted using bivariate and random-effects models, with subgroup analyses by clinical and methodological variables. Results: Twelve studies were included, five assessing AI and seven assessing SII. AI demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy, frequently matching or surpassing that of human radiologists, with AUCs of up to 0.93 and notable reductions in radiologist reading times (17–91%). Particularly in dense breast tissue, AI improved detection rates and workflow efficiency. SII was significantly associated with poorer outcomes, including reduced overall survival (HR ~1.97) and disease-free survival (HR ~2.07). However, variability in optimal cut-off values for SII limits its immediate clinical standardization. Conclusions: AI enhances diagnostic precision and operational efficiency in mammographic screening, while SII offers a cost-effective prognostic biomarker for systemic inflammation in breast cancer. Their integration holds promise for more personalized care. Nevertheless, challenges persist regarding prospective validation, standardization, and equitable access, which must be addressed through future translational research.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".