ReviewCureus2026
Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Diagnostic Pathology: A Systematic Review of Applications, Challenges, and Clinical Implications.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are transforming diagnostic medicine, particularly in pathology, where image-based interpretation is central to clinical decision-making. This systematic review aimed to examine recent advances, performance outcomes, and practical challenges associated with incorporating AI and ML into diagnostic pathology. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across major scientific databases for studies published between 2010 and 2025. Titles and abstracts were screened independently, full texts were assessed against predefined eligibility criteria, and data were extracted using standardised procedures. Methodological quality was evaluated using established critical appraisal tools appropriate to study design, with structured risk-of-bias assessment reported for diagnostic accuracy studies. A total of 13 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, covering multiple pathological domains including breast pathology, cytopathology, neuropathology, head and neck oncology, and multi-organ computational pathology. Across the included studies, deep learning approaches demonstrated high diagnostic performance for tumour detection, classification, and staging tasks. While several investigations incorporated external validation, most were retrospective in design and relied on secondary datasets. Risk-of-bias assessment indicated predominantly moderate overall risk, primarily related to study design and applicability concerns. The evidence suggests that AI and ML systems demonstrate strong technical performance in controlled validation settings and may function as assistive tools within digital pathology workflows.
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.