Pulse Brain · Growing Health Evidence Index
Tier 1 — Meta-analysis / systematic reviewPeer-reviewed

Externally validated and clinically useful machine learning algorithms to support patient-related decision-making in oncology: a scoping review

Cleiton Ferreira dos Santos, Mário Amorim‐Lopes

BMC Medical Research Methodology · 2025

Read source ↗ All evidence

Summary

This scoping review systematically mapped externally validated machine learning models used in cancer patient care from 2014–2022, synthesising evidence from 56 eligible studies. Convolutional neural networks predominated and demonstrated high performance; most studies were retrospective and multi-institutional, primarily using image-based data. Clinical utility assessments involving 499 clinicians indicated that AI assistance improved clinician performance relative to standard clinical systems, though the review identifies substantial gaps in external validation and clinical utility reporting across the cancer informatics literature.

Regional applicability

The review synthesised international evidence from high-quality journals but does not specify geographic origin of included studies. Findings on machine learning performance and clinical utility are methodologically transferable to United Kingdom oncology practice, though implementation would depend on local data governance, clinical infrastructure, and NHS adoption pathways.

Key measures

Machine learning model performance metrics; external validation status; clinical utility assessment tools; clinician performance improvement; comparison to standard clinical systems

Outcomes reported

The scoping review quantified the performance and clinical utility of externally validated machine learning models in cancer patient care, examining relationships between model types, cancer types, and specific clinical decisions. Clinical utility was assessed through measurement of clinician performance improvement and comparison to standard clinical systems.

Theme
Measurement & metrics
Subject
Out of scope / non-food
Study type
Systematic Review
Study design
Scoping review
Source type
Peer-reviewed study
Status
Published
System type
Human clinical
DOI
10.1186/s12874-025-02463-y
Catalogue ID
SNmp7um7ta-o3jxd2

Topic tags

Pulse AI · ask about this record

Dig deeper with Pulse AI.

Pulse AI has read the whole catalogue. Ask about this record, its theme, or how the findings apply to UK farming and policy — every answer cites the underlying studies.