Previously submitted to: Journal of Medical Internet Research (no longer under consideration since Aug 21, 2026)
Date Submitted: Jun 2, 2026
Open Peer Review Period: Jun 3, 2026 - Jul 29, 2026
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
NOTE: This is an unreviewed Preprint
Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint (What is a preprint?). Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn (a note "no longer under consideration" will appear above).
Peer review me: Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period (in this case, a "Peer Review Me" button to sign up as reviewer is displayed above). All preprints currently open for review are listed here. Outside of the formal open peer-review period we encourage you to tweet about the preprint.
Citation: Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).
Final version: If our system detects a final peer-reviewed "version of record" (VoR) published in any journal, a link to that VoR will appear below. Readers are then encourage to cite the VoR instead of this preprint.
Settings: If you are the author, you can login and change the preprint display settings, but the preprint URL/DOI is supposed to be stable and citable, so it should not be removed once posted.
Submit: To post your own preprint, simply submit to any JMIR journal, and choose the appropriate settings to expose your submitted version as preprint.
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
A Functional Taxonomy for Quantifying the Diagnostic-to-Therapeutic AI Gap in Image-Guided Oncology: Analysis of 29,277 Publications Across Five Domains
ABSTRACT
Background:
Artificial intelligence research in image-guided oncology has grown exponentially, yet how far the field has progressed from diagnostic assistance toward direct therapeutic execution has never been quantified. Existing bibliometric surveys categorize studies by technical architecture or clinical domain, metrics that track publication volume but not proximity to procedural deployment.
Objective:
We developed a hierarchical functional classification framework to map the global landscape of therapeutic AI development across five major oncological indications. Our two specific objectives were: (1) to classify publications by clinical output function along the diagnostic-to-therapeutic continuum, and (2) to quantify the translation gap using three complementary metrics, triangulated against trial and device registries.
Methods:
We extracted 29,277 Web of Science publications spanning five image-guided oncologic specialties (thyroid, breast, lung, prostate, and liver) published between January 2010 and April 2026. AI-related records were classified by clinical function using a three-stage protocol: keyword categorization, contextual scoring, and rule-based filtering. Inter-rater reliability, validated on 518 independently coded publications, yielded Cohen's κ of 0.92. Our framework distinguished Diagnosis AI (disease identification) from therapeutic AI, then further stratified therapeutic AI into Bridge-support AI (treatment planning, prognosis, patient selection) and True Treatment AI. True Treatment AI was defined by concurrent satisfaction of two criteria: ≥Level 2 on the Yang Surgical Autonomy Scale and ≥Stage 1 on the IDEAL Framework.
Results:
Of 16,937 AI-related publications identified, 14,277 (84.3%) were categorized as Diagnosis AI and only 2,660 (15.7%) as therapeutic AI. All therapeutic publications fell exclusively within the Bridge-support tier. None satisfied the dual-framework criteria for True Treatment AI, yielding a uniform penetration rate of 0.00% across all five oncological domains. This complete execution vacuum persisted despite an 11-fold variation in inter-domain treatment-to-diagnosis ratios. The finding held under threshold relaxation, sensitivity analyses, and independent triangulation against 3,491 ClinicalTrials.gov records and 1,430 FDA device listings.
Conclusions:
Each specialty should periodically profile its diagnostic-to-therapeutic translational progress. The uniform absence of True Treatment AI across 15 years and five domains indicates that this gap is structural rather than cumulative, rooted in methodological inheritance from diagnostic paradigms and in regulatory category mismatches. Closing this gap requires coordinated framework development across regulatory, research, and clinical communities, rather than incremental algorithmic improvements.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.