The use of artificial neural networks in decision support in cancer: A systematic review
Abstract
Artificial neural networks have featured in a wide range of medical journals, often with promising results. This paper reports on a systematic review that was conducted to assess the benefit of artificial neural networks (ANNs) as decision making tools in the field of cancer. The number of clinical trials (CTs) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving the use of ANNs in diagnosis and prognosis increased from 1 to 38 in the last decade. However, out of 396 studies involving the use of ANNs in cancer, only 27 were either CTs or RCTs. Out of these trials, 21 showed an increase in benefit to healthcare provision and 6 did not. None of these studies however showed a decrease in benefit. This paper reviews the clinical fields where neural network methods figure most prominently, the main algorithms featured, methodologies for model selection and the need for rigorous evaluation of results.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
ANNs have demonstrated promising outcomes in diagnosis and prognosis in cancer.
“Similarly, a study evaluated the performance and benefit of ANNs as clinical decision-making tools in cancer. It indicated that ANNs had demonstrated promising outcomes in diagnosis and prognosis. 53”
From Artificial Intelligence and Decision-Making in Healthcare: A Thematic Analysis of a Systematic Review of Reviews (2024) · cites this paper as [53]
Cites
Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health
Campbell, M. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694 · Cited by 3,474 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Opportunities and obstacles for deep learning in biology and medicine
Ching, T., Himmelstein, D. S., Beaulieu-Jones, B. K., Kalinin, A. A., Do, B. T., Way, G. P., Ferrero, E., Agapow, P.-M., Zietz, M., Hoffman, M. M., et al. (2018) · Journal of The Royal Society Interface · doi:10.1098/rsif.2017.0387 · Cited by 2,310 · see citing works
Christodoulou, E., Ma, J., Collins, G. S., Steyerberg, E. W., Verbakel, J. Y., & Van Calster, B. (2019) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.004 · Cited by 2,119 · see citing works
Khosravi, M., Zare, Z., Mojtabaeian, S. M., & Izadi, R. (2024) · Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology · doi:10.1177/23333928241234863 · Cited by 265 · see citing works
When computers take the lead: The automation of leadership
Wesche, J. S., & Sonderegger, A. (2019) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.027 · Cited by 157 · see citing works
Evaluating artificial intelligence in medicine: phases of clinical research
Park, Y., Jackson, G. P., Foreman, M. A., Gruen, D., Hu, J., & Das, A. K. (2020) · JAMIA Open · doi:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooaa033 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
Cresswell, K., Callaghan, M., Khan, S., Sheikh, Z., Mozaffar, H., & Sheikh, A. (2020) · Health Informatics Journal · doi:10.1177/1460458219900452 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
A spline-based tool to assess and visualize the calibration of multiclass risk predictions
Van Hoorde, K., Van Huffel, S., Timmerman, D., Bourne, T., & Van Calster, B. (2015) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2014.12.016 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Hearty, Á. P., & Gibney, M. J. (2008) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.3945/ajcn.2008.26619 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Nurek, M., Kostopoulou, O., Delaney, B. C., & Esmail, A. (2015) · European Journal of General Practice · doi:10.3109/13814788.2015.1043123 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Improving tractability of Clinical Decision Support system
Tan, T. Z., Ng, G. S., & Quek, C. (2008) · 2008 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn.2008.4634072 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lisboa, P. J., & Taktak, A. F. G.
- Affiliations
- Liverpool John Moores University (GB)
- Royal Liverpool University Hospital (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Taktak, Azzam F.G.
- Venue
- Neural Networks
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2006-05
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 408-415
- ISSN
- 0893-6080 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2128552148
- Cited by
- 462
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 39 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 28
- FWCI
- 3.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Neural Networks (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- artificial neural networks, cancer, clinical decision support, cancer diagnosis, cancer prognosis, clinical trials, model selection, health care delivery
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Clinical Trials as Topic, Computer Simulation, Decision Making, Humans, Medical Oncology, Neoplasms, Neural Networks, Computer, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, PubMed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
