98%
921
2 minutes
20
Medicine has become increasingly receptive to the use of artificial intelligence (AI). This overview of systematic reviews (SRs) aims to categorise current evidence about it and identify the current methodological state of the art in the field proposing a classification of AI model (CLASMOD-AI) to improve future reporting. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane library, EMBASE and Epistemonikos databases were screened by four blinded reviewers and all SRs that investigated AI tools in clinical medicine were included. 1923 articles were found, and of these, 360 articles were examined via the full-text and 161 SRs met the inclusion criteria. The search strategy, methodological, medical and risk of bias information were extracted. The CLASMOD-AI was based on input, model, data training, and performance metric of AI tools. A considerable increase in the number of SRs was observed in the last five years. The most covered field was oncology accounting for 13.9% of the SRs, with diagnosis as the predominant objective in 44.4% of the cases). The risk of bias was assessed in 49.1% of included SRs, yet only 39.2% of these used tools with specific items to assess AI metrics. This overview highlights the need for improved reporting on AI metrics, particularly regarding the training of AI models and dataset quality, as both are essential for a comprehensive quality assessment and for mitigating the risk of bias using specialized evaluation tools.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11920125 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2025.1550731 | DOI Listing |
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
September 2025
Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) risk models routinely adjust for endoscopic screening because of a) possible confounding with other risk factors and b) possible alteration of natural history of the disease due to adenoma detection and removal.
Methods: In this study, we defined a subject as screen-covered (SC) if a colonoscopy was performed in the past 10 years, and not screen-covered (NSC) otherwise. We created CRC risk models separately for SC and NSC subjects (HRSC, HRNSC) and then obtained a screening-coverage adjusted HR estimate (HRfull) based on a weighted average of ln(HRSC) and ln(HRNSC) with weight equal to the proportion of SC person-time in the NHS population.
Int Forum Allergy Rhinol
September 2025
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Al-Jahra Hospital, Al-Jahra, Kuwait.
Background: Various interventions have been proposed to enhance surgical field quality during endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). This study evaluates whether preoperative oral clonidine enhances surgical field quality during ESS.
Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched.
J Neurol
September 2025
College of Physical Education, China West Normal University, Nanchong, China.
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of various physical therapy interventions on fatigue and quality of life in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) using a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases through April 1, 2025. Eligible RCTs compared different exercise interventions in MS patients, focusing on fatigue and quality of life outcomes.
J Midwifery Womens Health
September 2025
College of Nursing, Research Institute of Nursing Innovation, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, South Korea.
Introduction: Given the rising number of studies on synthetic osmotic dilators, there is a lack of comprehensive reviews for their use compared with other commonly used cervical ripening methods. This study aimed to examine the maternal and neonatal safety and efficacy in cervical ripening and labor induction using synthetic osmotic dilators compared with pharmacologic agents (prostaglandin E, prostaglandin E, oxytocin) for labor induction.
Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies was conducted, using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases search.