ReviewDigital health
A scoping review of AI in the classification of oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders from visible-light photography.
Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To map the scope, methodological characteristics, and clinical task design of artificial intelligence (AI) models applied to visible-light photographs of the oral cavity for classification of oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD). Methods: A scoping review following the Arksey and O'Malley framework and PRISMA-ScR was conducted. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from January 2015 to October 2025. Studies were eligible if they applied AI to intraoral photography for lesion detection, classification, or risk stratification. Data were extracted on dataset provenance, ground-truth labelling, model architecture, validation strategy, performance metrics, and reporting completeness. Results: 127 studies met inclusion and were categorised by their output classes across a mutually exclusive, five-category framework (four ordered tiers plus a residual category) with a benign-OPMD-malignant disease spectrum. Over half addressed a cancer-versus-non-cancer endpoint only (54.3%, n=69), whilst 27.6% (n=35) preserved OPMD as a discrete output category. Public image datasets were used in 44.1% (n=56) of studies, and fully histologically-confirmed ground-truth labels were available in only 7.9% (n=10). External validation was reported in 8.7% (n=11), patient-level data splitting in 10.2% (n=13), and prospective clinical evaluation in 0% (n=0). ResNet-family architectures were most frequently reported (50.4%, n=64, as primary or comparator model); explainable-AI components appeared in 37.0% (n=47) and multimodal inputs in 12.6% (n=16). Conclusion: Classifying oral cancer and OPMD lesions with visible light photographs is an expanding field of research, but one which reveals space for more robust and clinically grounded training datasets as well as exploration of frontier AI methodologies.
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.