Cited by 49Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Artificial intelligence in clinical medicine: a state-of-the-art overview of systematic reviews with methodological recommendations for improved reporting

Open access
Morone, Giovanni, De Angelis, Luigi, Martino Cinnera, Alex, Carbonetti, Riccardo, Bisirri, Alessio, Ciancarelli, Irene, Iosa, Marco, Negrini, Stefano +2 more·2025·Frontiers in Digital Health

Abstract

Medicine has become increasingly receptive to the use of artificial intelligence (AI). This overview of systematic reviews (SRs) aims to categorise current evidence about it and identify the current methodological state of the art in the field proposing a classification of AI model (CLASMOD-AI) to improve future reporting. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane library, EMBASE and Epistemonikos databases were screened by four blinded reviewers and all SRs that investigated AI tools in clinical medicine were included. 1923 articles were found, and of these, 360 articles were examined via the full-text and 161 SRs met the inclusion criteria. The search strategy, methodological, medical and risk of bias information were extracted. The CLASMOD-AI was based on input, model, data training, and performance metric of AI tools. A considerable increase in the number of SRs was observed in the last five years. The most covered field was oncology accounting for 13.9% of the SRs, with diagnosis as the predominant objective in 44.4% of the cases). The risk of bias was assessed in 49.1% of included SRs, yet only 39.2% of these used tools with specific items to assess AI metrics. This overview highlights the need for improved reporting on AI metrics, particularly regarding the training of AI models and dataset quality, as both are essential for a comprehensive quality assessment and for mitigating the risk of bias using specialized evaluation tools.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fdgth.2025.1550731

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Inconsistent evaluation standards obstruct generalisability and regulatory oversight.

    “Methodological reviews11,35 identified an additional challenge: inconsistent evaluation standards obstruct generalisability and regulatory oversight.”

    From Generative Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: Automation Bias, Deskilling, and Cognitive Implications – A Systematic Review (2026) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) identifies heterogeneity in clinical AI studies, including evaluation metrics, as a challenge for synthesising evidence. The Results > Methodological approach (page unavailable) also documents varied approaches to quality assessment. Neither passage establishes that inconsistent evaluation standards obstruct generalisability or regulatory oversight. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Frameworks developed in studies enhance methodological theory by incorporating AI ethics, transparency, and bias mitigation into evidence appraisal models like PRISMA-AI and CLASMOD-AI.

    “Moreover, frameworks developed in studies4,11,35 enhance methodological theory by incorporating AI ethics, transparency, and bias mitigation into evidence appraisal models like PRISMA-AI and CLASMOD-AI.”

    From Generative Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: Automation Bias, Deskilling, and Cognitive Implications – A Systematic Review (2026) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Methods (Data extraction) describe CLASMOD-AI as a tool for evaluating how systematic reviews report AI data, models, training, and performance metrics; the Discussion links improved reporting to bias assessment. But the Limitations and strengths section explicitly says CLASMOD-AI does not yet consider ethical aspects, and the Introduction says PRISMA-AI was still under development. The source therefore does not support the claim that these frameworks already incorporate AI ethics into evidence appraisal. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [2]Law J Martin E. Concise Colour Medical Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2020).
  2. [12]Pollock M Fernandes RM Becker LA Pieper D Hartling L. Chapter V: overviews of reviews. In: Higgins JPT Thomas J Chandler J Cumpston M Li T Page MJ Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.5. Cochrane (2024). Available online at: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook (accessed August 2023)
  3. [15]Morone G De Angelis L Cinnera AM Carbonetti R Bisirri A Ciancarelli I Artificial intelligence in clinical medicine: a state-of-the-art overview of systematic reviews with methodological recommendations for improved reporting. OSF. (2024). https://osf.io/tvaew/ PMC11920125 40110115

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morone, G., De Angelis, L., Martino Cinnera, A., Carbonetti, R., Bisirri, A., Ciancarelli, I., Iosa, M., Negrini, S., Kiekens, C., & Negrini, F.
Affiliations
  • University of L'Aquila (IT)
  • Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital (IT)
  • Fondazione Santa Lucia (IT)
  • IRCCS Ospedale Galeazzi - Sant'Ambrogio (IT)
  • University of Insubria (IT)
Venue
Frontiers in Digital Health
Published
2025-03-05
Volume
7
Pages
1550731-1550731
ISSN
2673-253X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4408158653
Cited by
41
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 15
FWCI
2.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca - Università degli Studi dell Aquila (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca (Universita Degli Studi Di Milano) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • IrInSubria (University of Insubria) (submittedVersion)
  • IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Ministero della Salute
  • Università degli Studi dell'Aquila (FFORIC24.31)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
reporting quality, risk of bias assessment, training data quality, diagnosis

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