ReviewFrontiers in digital health2025
Evaluating AI-driven precision oncology for breast cancer in low- and middle-income countries: a review of machine learning performance, genomic data use, and clinical feasibility.
Review in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sustainable artificial intelligence in global health: balancing promise, equity, and environmental realities in low- and middle-income countries.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Genomic Data Analysis: New Frontiers in Precision Medicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Advances in Breast Cancer Diagnostics: From Screening to Precision Medicine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly used to support treatment decision-making in breast cancer, yet their performance and feasibility in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remain incompletely defined. Many high-performing models, particularly genomic and multimodal systems trained on The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), raise questions about cross-domain generalizability and equity. Methods: We conducted an AI-assisted scoping review combining Boolean database searches with semantic retrieval tools (Elicit, Semantic Scholar, Connected Papers). From 497 unique records, 43 studies met inclusion criteria and 34 reported quantitative metrics. Data extraction included study design, AI model type (treatment-recommendation, prognostic, or diagnostic/subtyping), input modalities, and validation strategies. Risk of bias was assessed using a hybrid PROBAST-AI/QUADAS-AI framework. Results: Treatment-recommendation systems (e.g., WFO, Navya) showed concordance ranges of 67%-97% in early-stage settings but markedly lower performance in metastatic disease. Prognostic and multimodal models frequently achieved AUCs of 0.90-0.99. HIC-trained genomic models demonstrated consistent declines during external LMIC validation (e.g., CDK4/6 response model: AUC 0.9956 → 0.9795). LMIC implementations reported reduced time-to-treatment and improved adherence to guidelines, but these gains were constrained by gaps in electronic health records, limited digital pathology, and insufficient local genomic testing capacity. Conclusions: AI-enabled systems show promise for improving breast cancer treatment planning, especially in early-stage disease and resource-limited settings. However, the evidence base remains dominated by HIC-derived datasets and retrospective analyses, with persistent challenges related to domain shift, data representativeness, and genomic governance. Advancing equitable AI-driven oncology will require prospective multicenter validation, expanded LMIC-based data generation, and context-specific implementation strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.