Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38849530›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2024

Towards equitable AI in oncology.

Vidya Sankar Viswanathan, Vani Parmar, Anant Madabhushi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Current trends and future directions of artificial intelligence in lung cancer diagnosis.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Breast cancer: pathogenesis and treatments.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2025
    Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Vidya Sankar ViswanathanDepartment of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1578-6248
Vani ParmarDepartment of Breast Surgical Oncology, Punyashlok Ahilyadevi Holkar Head & Neck Cancer Institute of India, Mumbai, India.
Anant MadabhushiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Emory University and Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA. anantm@emory.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5741-0399

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) stands at the threshold of revolutionizing clinical oncology, with considerable potential to improve early cancer detection and risk assessment, and to enable more accurate personalized treatment recommendations. However, a notable imbalance exists in the distribution of the benefits of AI, which disproportionately favour those living in specific geographical locations and in specific populations. In this Perspective, we discuss the need to foster the development of equitable AI tools that are both accurate in and accessible to a diverse range of patient populations, including those in low-income to middle-income countries. We also discuss some of the challenges and potential solutions in attaining equitable AI, including addressing the historically limited representation of diverse populations in existing clinical datasets and the use of inadequate clinical validation methods. Additionally, we focus on extant sources of inequity including the type of model approach (such as deep learning, and feature engineering-based methods), the implications of dataset curation strategies, the need for rigorous validation across a variety of populations and settings, and the risk of introducing contextual bias that comes with developing tools predominantly in high-income countries.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMedical OncologyNeoplasmsDeveloping CountriesHumans

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.