암 진단용 AI 시장 : 세계 예측(2026-2032년)

The AI in Cancer Diagnostics Market is projected to grow by USD 2,040.40 million at a CAGR of 19.15% by 2032.

Artificial intelligence in cancer diagnostics is reshaping how clinicians detect, classify, triage, and monitor malignancies across radiology, pathology, genomics, endoscopy, dermatology, cytology, and multimodal clinical decision support. The strongest use cases are emerging where high-volume image interpretation, complex biomarker analysis, and time-sensitive diagnostic workflows create measurable pressure on health systems. AI-enabled cancer detection tools are being applied to mammography, lung nodule assessment, prostate imaging, cervical cytology, digital pathology, colonoscopy support, skin lesion evaluation, and molecular profiling, with the goal of improving diagnostic accuracy, reducing missed findings, supporting earlier detection, and standardizing interpretation across care settings.

The sector is being shaped by verified healthcare priorities: rising cancer incidence, expanding screening programs, shortages of radiologists and pathologists in many countries, growth in digital pathology adoption, and increasing availability of real-world imaging and molecular datasets. Public health agencies consistently identify cancer as one of the leading causes of death worldwide, while the World Health Organization has reported millions of new cancer cases annually, making earlier and more precise diagnosis a strategic priority for healthcare systems. At the same time, regulatory bodies are increasingly scrutinizing AI-based software as a medical device, emphasizing clinical validation, transparency, cybersecurity, bias monitoring, and post-market performance surveillance.

For healthcare providers, laboratories, policymakers, and technology developers, the opportunity lies not simply in automating diagnostic tasks but in embedding clinically validated AI into interoperable workflows. The most sustainable implementations align AI outputs with physician decision-making, electronic health records, imaging archives, laboratory information systems, tumor boards, and quality assurance programs. As AI in cancer diagnostics advances, evidence generation, workflow integration, and trust in clinical performance remain the core factors determining adoption.

Transformative Shifts in the AI Cancer Diagnostics Landscape

The AI in cancer diagnostics landscape is moving from experimental algorithm development toward clinically governed deployment. A major shift is the transition from single-task image analysis to multimodal AI models that combine radiology, pathology, genomics, clinical notes, laboratory values, and patient history. This movement reflects the complexity of oncology, where diagnosis increasingly depends on integrating anatomical, histological, molecular, and clinical context rather than relying on one data source alone.

Digital pathology is one of the most significant structural enablers. As laboratories digitize slides, AI can support tasks such as tumor detection, grading assistance, mitotic counting, biomarker quantification, margin assessment, and workload prioritization. In radiology, AI is increasingly used for lesion detection, segmentation, risk scoring, follow-up comparison, and triage in high-volume screening programs. In gastroenterology and dermatology, real-time AI assistance is improving the consistency of visual detection during colonoscopy and skin lesion assessment, while genomic AI supports variant interpretation and identification of actionable molecular patterns.

Another transformative shift is the growing importance of explainable, validated, and workflow-native AI. Healthcare organizations are moving beyond standalone dashboards toward integrated systems that fit within picture archiving and communication systems, digital slide viewers, laboratory workflows, and clinical decision support environments. Regulators and clinical users are also demanding evidence across diverse patient populations to reduce algorithmic bias and ensure reliable performance across age groups, ethnicities, imaging devices, sample preparation methods, and disease subtypes.

The commercial and clinical landscape is therefore being transformed by three forces: increased digitization of diagnostic data, heightened demand for earlier cancer detection, and stronger governance around AI safety and effectiveness. Organizations that can demonstrate reproducible clinical benefit, seamless integration, and continuous performance monitoring are best positioned in this evolving environment.

Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Cancer Diagnosis

Artificial intelligence is having a cumulative impact across the cancer diagnostic pathway by connecting detection, characterization, prioritization, and treatment-planning support. In screening environments, AI can flag suspicious findings for radiologist or pathologist review, helping prioritize urgent cases and reduce variability in interpretation. In diagnostic imaging, segmentation and quantification tools support measurement consistency for tumors and lesions, while risk stratification models can help guide follow-up recommendations when used under clinician oversight.

In pathology, AI contributes to reproducibility in tasks that have traditionally depended on manual visual assessment. Quantitative image analysis can support biomarker scoring, tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte evaluation, tissue classification, and assessment of histologic patterns. These applications are particularly relevant as oncology moves toward precision medicine, where diagnostic conclusions increasingly influence targeted therapy eligibility, immunotherapy decisions, and enrollment in molecularly guided care pathways.

The cumulative effect of AI also extends to operational performance. Cancer diagnostic services face persistent pressures from workforce constraints, growing imaging volumes, and increasing complexity of molecular testing. AI can support workflow triage, quality control, report consistency, and turnaround time improvement when implemented with validated protocols. However, the technology does not replace specialist judgment; rather, it functions best as an assistive layer that supports clinicians while preserving accountability.

Ethical and regulatory considerations are central to this impact. AI systems must be monitored for dataset bias, clinical drift, false positives, false negatives, and performance changes across equipment and populations. Robust governance requires documented validation, audit trails, cybersecurity safeguards, explainability, human-in-the-loop oversight, and clear escalation pathways. The long-term value of AI in cancer diagnostics will depend on its ability to improve clinical reliability while maintaining patient safety, privacy, and equity.

Key Regional Insights for AI in Cancer Diagnostics

Asia-Pacific is advancing rapidly in AI-enabled cancer diagnostics due to large patient populations, expanding national cancer screening initiatives, growth in digital health infrastructure, and strong policy interest in medical AI. China, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and ASEAN healthcare systems are increasing the use of AI across radiology, pathology, endoscopy, and oncology decision support, although adoption varies by hospital digitization, reimbursement readiness, and data governance maturity. The region's priorities include improving access to early cancer detection, addressing specialist shortages in rural and secondary-care settings, and strengthening AI validation across ethnically diverse populations.

Europe is characterized by strong regulatory oversight, data protection requirements, and cross-border initiatives supporting trustworthy AI in healthcare. The European Union's medical device and AI governance frameworks are shaping how AI cancer diagnostic tools are validated, deployed, and monitored, while Europe's research networks and cancer plans are encouraging data-driven screening and precision oncology. Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom are advancing digital pathology, imaging AI, and cancer screening innovation, with emphasis on clinical evidence, interoperability, patient data protection, and explainable AI.

North America remains a leading region for clinical validation, regulatory development, and integration of AI-based diagnostic software into advanced oncology workflows. The United States has an established pathway for reviewing software as a medical device, and healthcare institutions are using AI in breast imaging, lung cancer screening, digital pathology research, prostate imaging, colonoscopy support, and molecular diagnostics. Canada's approach emphasizes publicly funded health system integration, research collaboration, responsible AI governance, privacy, and equitable access across provinces and underserved populations.

Latin America is adopting AI in cancer diagnostics through a combination of private healthcare investment, telemedicine expansion, and public-sector interest in earlier detection. Brazil and Mexico are among the most active countries due to their large oncology burden and expanding diagnostic infrastructure. Key regional challenges include unequal access to advanced imaging, limited digital pathology deployment in some areas, fragmented data infrastructure, and the need for locally validated datasets that reflect regional demographics, cancer subtypes, and healthcare workflows.

Africa presents a highly important opportunity for AI cancer diagnostics because the region faces documented shortages of oncology specialists, pathologists, radiologists, screening infrastructure, and laboratory capacity in many health systems. AI can support telepathology, mobile health, cloud-based diagnostic assistance, cervical cancer screening, breast imaging triage, and remote specialist collaboration. However, implementation requires investment in connectivity, laboratory digitization, regulatory capacity, workforce training, ethical data governance, and locally representative training and validation data.

The Middle East is investing in AI-enabled healthcare as part of broader digital transformation strategies, especially in GCC countries where tertiary hospitals, electronic health records, national health modernization programs, and precision medicine initiatives are supporting diagnostic innovation. AI in oncology imaging and pathology is gaining attention as health systems seek faster diagnosis, specialist support, and high-quality cancer care. Regional success will depend on regulatory alignment, cybersecurity, interoperability, clinician adoption, and evidence generation within local populations.

Key Group Insights for AI in Cancer Diagnostics

NATO member countries, while not a healthcare bloc, include many advanced health systems that are investing in secure digital infrastructure, cybersecurity, resilient health data systems, and trusted digital transformation. These priorities directly affect AI deployment in sensitive diagnostic environments where oncology images, pathology slides, genomic data, and patient records require strong privacy protection and operational resilience. Across NATO-aligned health systems, AI in cancer diagnostics is most relevant where secure data exchange, regulated software, and clinician-supervised decision support can strengthen radiology, pathology, and screening workflows.

G7 countries are key adopters and regulators of AI-enabled cancer diagnostics because they have advanced healthcare systems, significant research capacity, mature oncology networks, and established regulatory frameworks for medical technologies. These countries are driving evidence standards for AI in radiology, pathology, genomics, endoscopy, and clinical decision support, with strong attention to patient safety, software lifecycle management, post-market monitoring, and real-world clinical validation. Their policies and clinical practices often influence broader international expectations for trustworthy AI in cancer detection.

BRICS countries represent a diverse but influential group for AI cancer diagnostics because they combine large cancer burdens, expanding digital health ecosystems, and strong interest in scalable diagnostic access. China and India are central to this momentum due to population scale, screening needs, hospital digitization, and growing medical AI capabilities, while Brazil, Russia, and South Africa are addressing diagnostic access gaps and oncology service capacity. The group's shared challenge is ensuring that AI tools are validated locally and integrated into practical clinical workflows, especially in settings with uneven infrastructure.

The European Union is shaping the global conversation on responsible AI through strict data protection requirements, medical device rules, and emerging AI governance standards. For AI in cancer diagnostics, this means developers and healthcare providers must prioritize clinical evidence, risk management, traceability, transparency, cybersecurity, and post-deployment monitoring. EU initiatives supporting health data spaces and interoperable digital infrastructure are relevant for oncology AI because high-quality, privacy-preserving datasets are essential for validating algorithms across diverse populations and care settings.

ASEAN is becoming an important growth environment for AI in cancer diagnostics as member countries expand hospital digitization, screening capacity, and telehealth infrastructure. Singapore is a regional center for medical AI governance and clinical research, while Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines are addressing cancer detection needs across large and geographically distributed populations. The most relevant AI applications in ASEAN include radiology triage, breast cancer screening support, cervical cancer detection, pathology workflow assistance, endoscopy support, and remote specialist collaboration.

The GCC is prioritizing AI-enabled cancer diagnostics within national digital health agendas, supported by investment in advanced hospitals, electronic health records, imaging infrastructure, and precision medicine initiatives. Health systems in the group are particularly focused on improving diagnostic quality, reducing time to treatment, building integrated oncology pathways, and expanding access to specialist-level interpretation. AI adoption is strongest where it aligns with centralized healthcare modernization, regulatory clarity, cybersecurity readiness, and specialist-led validation.

Key Country Insights for AI in Cancer Diagnostics

China is a major force in AI cancer diagnostics, supported by large clinical datasets, hospital digitization, national AI policy focus, and active development in imaging, pathology, endoscopy, and screening technologies. The United States is one of the most active countries for AI in cancer diagnostics, supported by advanced oncology centers, established regulatory pathways for AI-based medical software, strong imaging and molecular diagnostics infrastructure, and a large base of clinical research. Japan is applying AI in imaging, endoscopy, pathology, and precision oncology, supported by high clinical standards, advanced medical technology adoption, and an aging population with substantial cancer screening needs.

India has strong potential for AI cancer diagnostics because of its large patient population, uneven specialist distribution, expanding digital health architecture, and need for scalable early detection in breast, oral, cervical, and lung cancers. Germany has strong capabilities in medical engineering, hospital digitization, radiology AI, pathology innovation, and oncology research, with adoption shaped by clinical validation and data protection requirements. The United Kingdom is advancing AI in cancer imaging, pathology, and screening through national digital health initiatives and clinically oriented validation programs designed to improve earlier cancer detection and diagnostic productivity.

Australia is advancing AI in radiology, pathology, melanoma detection, and rural diagnostic support, with strong attention to clinical governance, patient safety, and equitable access across geographically dispersed communities. France is emphasizing health data governance, AI ethics, oncology research integration, and secure use of clinical datasets for innovation in imaging, pathology, and precision diagnostics. South Korea is a leading digital health and medical AI environment, with advanced hospital infrastructure, strong imaging capabilities, national digital health priorities, and growing use of AI in oncology workflows.

Italy and Spain are progressing in imaging AI, digital pathology pilots, cancer screening modernization, and oncology care transformation, although adoption depends on regional healthcare organization, procurement pathways, reimbursement readiness, and data infrastructure maturity. Canada is emphasizing responsible implementation within publicly funded healthcare, with attention to privacy, interoperability, real-world evidence, and equitable access across provinces, including underserved and remote populations. Russia is developing AI applications in radiology and public health diagnostics, with emphasis on imaging workflow support, centralized digital health systems, and deployment in major urban healthcare networks.

Brazil is a major Latin American adopter of AI-enabled cancer detection due to its large population, expanding private healthcare sector, academic medical capacity, and public health focus on breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer diagnosis. Mexico is advancing digital health capabilities and cancer diagnostic modernization, with adoption shaped by urban-rural disparities, the need to expand screening access, and investment in imaging and telemedicine infrastructure. Across these countries, successful AI cancer diagnostics implementation depends on local clinical validation, interoperability, regulatory clarity, workforce readiness, and alignment with national cancer control priorities.

Actionable Recommendations for AI Cancer Diagnostics Leaders

Industry leaders should prioritize clinically validated AI applications that solve specific diagnostic bottlenecks rather than pursuing broad automation without workflow alignment. The highest-value opportunities include screening triage, lesion detection, pathology quality control, biomarker quantification, report standardization, case prioritization, endoscopy assistance, and multidisciplinary oncology support. Every deployment should begin with a clearly defined clinical use case, measurable performance criteria, documented human oversight, and a plan for monitoring diagnostic impact.

Healthcare organizations should establish AI governance committees that include clinicians, data scientists, compliance teams, information security leaders, laboratory specialists, patient safety experts, and ethics representatives. Governance should cover model validation, bias assessment, cybersecurity, data privacy, procurement criteria, user training, monitoring, and incident response. Because AI performance can change with population mix, scanner type, staining protocol, software updates, and disease prevalence, post-deployment surveillance is essential.

Technology developers should invest in diverse, high-quality datasets and transparent validation studies across multiple clinical sites. Evidence should demonstrate performance in real-world workflows, not only curated retrospective datasets. Developers should also design AI tools that integrate with existing radiology, pathology, laboratory, and electronic health record systems through recognized interoperability standards. Explainability, auditability, and clinician-friendly user interfaces are increasingly important for adoption.

Payers and policymakers should support reimbursement and procurement models that reward validated clinical value, improved diagnostic quality, and equitable access. Public-private collaboration can help build privacy-preserving data infrastructure, representative validation datasets, and training programs for clinicians using AI. For global expansion, leaders must localize AI tools to regional disease patterns, languages, clinical guidelines, care pathways, and regulatory requirements.

Research Methodology for AI in Cancer Diagnostics

A rigorous research methodology for analyzing AI in cancer diagnostics should combine primary research, secondary research, regulatory review, clinical literature assessment, and expert validation. Primary research may include structured interviews with radiologists, pathologists, oncologists, laboratory directors, hospital administrators, digital health leaders, regulatory experts, and procurement decision-makers. These discussions help clarify adoption barriers, workflow needs, evidence expectations, implementation risks, and clinical priorities across different healthcare settings.

Secondary research should draw from peer-reviewed medical literature, clinical guidelines, public health databases, regulatory submissions, government health strategies, medical device safety communications, hospital digital transformation reports, cancer screening policies, and standards bodies. Particular attention should be given to evidence from multicenter validation studies, prospective evaluations, real-world performance monitoring, and systematic reviews. Because AI tools can perform differently across populations and clinical environments, methodology should assess dataset diversity, external validation, comparator standards, and bias risk.

The research process should segment AI in cancer diagnostics by modality, cancer type, end-user, deployment environment, and clinical function. Relevant modalities include radiology, pathology, genomics, endoscopy, dermatology, cytology, and multimodal decision support. Clinical functions include detection, segmentation, classification, grading, triage, risk prediction, biomarker assessment, workflow prioritization, and quality assurance. End-users include hospitals, diagnostic laboratories, cancer centers, academic medical institutions, screening programs, and telemedicine networks.

Quality assurance should include triangulation of findings across multiple verified sources, exclusion of unsupported claims, and review by subject-matter specialists. Since this field evolves quickly, research should also track regulatory updates, clinical adoption evidence, AI safety guidance, data protection rules, cybersecurity expectations, and emerging standards for software as a medical device.

Conclusion: The Future of AI in Cancer Diagnostics

AI in cancer diagnostics is entering a critical phase in which clinical credibility, workflow integration, and responsible governance matter as much as technical performance. The technology is already demonstrating value across imaging, pathology, endoscopy, genomics, cytology, dermatology, and multimodal oncology decision support, particularly where it helps clinicians manage high diagnostic volumes, improve consistency, and identify suspicious findings earlier.

Regional adoption will continue to reflect differences in healthcare digitization, regulatory maturity, specialist availability, reimbursement structures, data protection requirements, and public trust in AI. Advanced health systems are setting standards for validation and governance, while emerging healthcare markets are exploring AI as a way to expand access to timely cancer diagnosis. Across all environments, the most successful implementations will be those that combine robust clinical evidence with explainable outputs, privacy protection, interoperability, cybersecurity, and continuous monitoring.

For industry leaders, the strategic imperative is clear: build and deploy AI cancer diagnostic tools that are clinically validated, ethically governed, locally adaptable, and designed around real-world diagnostic workflows. AI will not replace oncology specialists, radiologists, or pathologists; its long-term role is to strengthen their decision-making, improve diagnostic reliability, and support earlier, more equitable cancer detection.

Table of Contents

1. Preface

• 1.1. Objectives of the Study
• 1.2. Market Definition
• 1.3. Market Segmentation & Coverage
• 1.4. Years Considered for the Study
• 1.5. Currency Considered for the Study
• 1.6. Language Considered for the Study
• 1.7. Key Stakeholders

2. Research Methodology

• 2.1. Introduction
• 2.2. Research Design
  • 2.2.1. Primary Research
  • 2.2.2. Secondary Research
• 2.3. Research Framework
  • 2.3.1. Qualitative Analysis
  • 2.3.2. Quantitative Analysis
• 2.4. Market Size Estimation
  • 2.4.1. Top-Down Approach
  • 2.4.2. Bottom-Up Approach
• 2.5. Data Triangulation
• 2.6. Research Outcomes
• 2.7. Research Assumptions
• 2.8. Research Limitations

3. Executive Summary

• 3.1. Introduction
• 3.2. CXO Perspective
• 3.3. Market Size & Growth Trends
• 3.4. New Revenue Opportunities
• 3.5. Next-Generation Business Models
• 3.6. Industry Roadmap

4. Market Overview

• 4.1. Introduction
• 4.2. Industry Ecosystem & Value Chain Analysis
  • 4.2.1. Supply-Side Analysis
  • 4.2.2. Demand-Side Analysis
  • 4.2.3. Stakeholder Analysis
• 4.3. Market Dynamics
  • 4.3.1. Key Drivers
  • 4.3.2. Key Restraints
  • 4.3.3. Key Opportunities
  • 4.3.4. Key Challenges
• 4.4. Porter's Five Forces Analysis
• 4.5. PESTLE Analysis
• 4.6. Market Outlook
  • 4.6.1. Near-Term Market Outlook (0-2 Years)
  • 4.6.2. Medium-Term Market Outlook (3-5 Years)
  • 4.6.3. Long-Term Market Outlook (5-10 Years)
• 4.7. Go-to-Market Strategy

5. Market Insights

• 5.1. Consumer Insights & End-User Perspective
• 5.2. Consumer Experience Benchmarking
• 5.3. Opportunity Mapping
• 5.4. Distribution Channel Analysis
• 5.5. Pricing Trend Analysis
• 5.6. Regulatory Compliance & Standards Framework
• 5.7. ESG & Sustainability Analysis
• 5.8. Disruption & Risk Scenarios
• 5.9. Return on Investment & Cost-Benefit Analysis

6. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2026

7. AI in Cancer Diagnostics Market, by Component

• 7.1. Introduction
• 7.2. Hardware
  • 7.2.1. AI Servers & Workstations
  • 7.2.2. High-Performance Computing Systems
  • 7.2.3. Data Storage Systems
• 7.3. Services
  • 7.3.1. Managed Services
  • 7.3.2. Professional Services
• 7.4. Software
  • 7.4.1. Diagnostic Imaging Software
  • 7.4.2. Workflow & Reporting Software
  • 7.4.3. AI Model Development Platforms

8. AI in Cancer Diagnostics Market, by Cancer Type

• 8.1. Introduction
• 8.2. Breast Cancer
• 8.3. Colorectal Cancer
• 8.4. Lung Cancer
• 8.5. Prostate Cancer

9. AI in Cancer Diagnostics Market, by Technology

• 9.1. Introduction
• 9.2. Deep Learning
• 9.3. Machine Learning
• 9.4. Natural Language Processing

10. AI in Cancer Diagnostics Market, by Application

• 10.1. Introduction
• 10.2. Diagnostic Imaging
  • 10.2.1. CT Imaging
  • 10.2.2. MRI Imaging
  • 10.2.3. PET Imaging
  • 10.2.4. Ultrasound Imaging
• 10.3. Genomic Profiling
  • 10.3.1. DNA Sequencing
  • 10.3.2. Epigenetic Analysis
  • 10.3.3. RNA Sequencing
• 10.4. Pathology
  • 10.4.1. Digital Pathology
  • 10.4.2. Histopathology
• 10.5. Predictive Analytics
  • 10.5.1. Outcome Prediction
  • 10.5.2. Risk Assessment
• 10.6. Treatment Planning
  • 10.6.1. Radiotherapy Planning
  • 10.6.2. Surgical Planning

11. AI in Cancer Diagnostics Market, by End User

• 11.1. Introduction
• 11.2. Diagnostic Laboratories
• 11.3. Hospitals And Clinics
• 11.4. Pharmaceutical Companies
• 11.5. Research Institutes

12. AI in Cancer Diagnostics Market, by Region

• 12.1. Asia-Pacific
• 12.2. Europe
• 12.3. North America
• 12.4. Latin America
• 12.5. Africa
• 12.6. Middle East

13. AI in Cancer Diagnostics Market, by Group

• 13.1. NATO
• 13.2. G7
• 13.3. BRICS
• 13.4. European Union
• 13.5. ASEAN
• 13.6. GCC

14. AI in Cancer Diagnostics Market, by Country

• 14.1. China
• 14.2. United States
• 14.3. Japan
• 14.4. India
• 14.5. Germany
• 14.6. United Kingdom
• 14.7. Australia
• 14.8. France
• 14.9. South Korea
• 14.10. Italy
• 14.11. Canada
• 14.12. Russia
• 14.13. Brazil
• 14.14. Mexico
• 14.15. Spain

15. Competitive Landscape

• 15.1. Market Share Analysis, 2025
• 15.2. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2025
• 15.3. Market Concentration Analysis, 2025
  • 15.3.1. Concentration Ratio (CR)
  • 15.3.2. Herfindahl Hirschman Index (HHI)
• 15.4. Recent Developments & Impact Analysis, 2025
• 15.5. Product Portfolio Analysis, 2025
• 15.6. Benchmarking Analysis, 2025

16. Company Profiles

• 16.1. Abbott Laboratories Inc
• 16.2. Aidoc Medical
• 16.3. Aiforia Technologies
• 16.4. Azra AI
• 16.5. C the Signs
• 16.6. ConcertAI LLC
• 16.7. Enlitic Inc
• 16.8. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd
• 16.9. Flatiron Health Inc
• 16.10. Foresight Diagnostics
• 16.11. GE HealthCare Technologies Inc.
• 16.12. GRAIL Inc
• 16.13. Ibex Medical Analytics
• 16.14. International Business Machines Corporation
• 16.15. Intuitive Surgical Inc
• 16.16. Kheiron Medical Technologies Limited
• 16.17. Koninklijke Philips N.V.
• 16.18. Lunit Inc
• 16.19. Medial EarlySign
• 16.20. Medtronic Plc
• 16.21. Microsoft Corporation
• 16.22. NVIDIA Corporation
• 16.23. Paige AI Inc
• 16.24. PathAI Inc
• 16.25. Qure.ai Technologies Private Limited
• 16.26. Siemens Healthineers AG
• 16.27. SkinVision
• 16.28. Tempus AI Inc
• 16.29. Viz.ai Inc
• 16.30. Zebra Medical Vision