SynthesisEuropean radiology2020
Diagnostic accuracy and potential covariates for machine learning to identify IDH mutations in glioma patients: evidence from a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Performance of Artificial Intelligence in Classifying Molecular Markers in Adult-Type Gliomas Using Histopathological Images: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic performance of deep learning for predicting glioma isocitrate dehydrogenase and 1p/19q co-deletion in MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Accuracy of Radiomics in PredictingRadiology. Artificial intelligence · 2024Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of a machine learning-based radiomics approach of MR in predicting IDH mutations in glioma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Predicting IDH and ATRX mutations in gliomas from radiomic features with machine learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in radiology · 2024Pooled it
- A three-classification machine learning model for non-invasive prediction of molecular subtypes in diffuse glioma: a two-center study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Using partially shared radiomics features to simultaneously identify isocitrate dehydrogenase mutation status and epilepsy in glioma patients from MRI images.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Meta-analysis of multi-center transcriptomic profiles and machine learning reveal phospholipase Cβ4 as a Wnt/Ca²Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- A subregion-based RadioFusionOmics model discriminates between grade 4 astrocytoma and glioblastoma on multisequence MRI.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024Article
- Machine learning-based nomogram for distinguishing between supratentorial extraventricular ependymoma and supratentorial glioblastoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- S100A6 is a potential diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for human glioma.Oncology letters · 2023Article
- Performance of deep learning algorithms to distinguish high-grade glioma from low-grade glioma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.iScience · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence in neuro-oncology.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Review
- The value of multiparametric MRI radiomics in predicting IDH genotype in glioma before surgery.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Correlation of T1- to T2-weighted signal intensity ratio with T1- and T2-relaxation time and IDH mutation status in glioma.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Deep learning for prediction of isocitrate dehydrogenase mutation in gliomas: a critical approach, systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic test performance using a Bayesian approach.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- Imaging diagnosis and treatment selection for brain tumors in the era of molecular therapeutics.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2022Review
- Visualization of tumor heterogeneity and prediction of isocitrate dehydrogenase mutation status for human gliomas using multiparametric physiologic and metabolic MRI.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Preoperative Diagnosis and Molecular Characterization of Gliomas With Liquid Biopsy and Radiogenomics.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Review
- MRI biomarkers in neuro-oncology.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of machine learning (ML) in predicting isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutations in patients with glioma and to identify potential covariates that could influence the diagnostic performance of ML.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library up to 1 August 2019 was conducted to collect all the articles investigating the diagnostic performance of ML for prediction of IDH mutation in glioma. The search strategy combined synonyms for 'machine learning', 'glioma', and 'IDH'. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was obtained.
resultsNine original articles assessing a total of 996 patients with glioma were included. Among these studies, five divided the participants into training and validation sets, while the remaining four studies only had a training set. The AUC of ML for predicting IDH mutation in the training and validation sets was 93% (95% CI 91-95%) and 89% (95% CI 86-92%), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 87% (95% CI 82-91%) and 88% (95% CI 83-92%) in the training set and 87% (95% CI 76-93%) and 90% (95% CI 72-97%) in the validation set. In subgroup analyses in the training set, the combined use of clinical and imaging features with ML yielded higher sensitivity (90% vs. 83%) and specificity (90% vs. 82%) than the use of imaging features alone. In addition, ML performed better for high-grade gliomas than for low-grade gliomas, and ML that used conventional MRI sequences demonstrated higher specificity for predicting IDH mutation than ML using conventional and advanced MRI sequences.
conclusionsML demonstrated an excellent diagnostic performance in predicting IDH mutation of glioma. Clinical information, MRI sequences, and glioma grade were the main factors influencing diagnostic specificity. KEY POINTS: • Machine learning demonstrated an excellent diagnostic performance for prediction of IDH mutation in glioma (the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 88% and 87%, respectively). • Machine learning that used conventional MRI sequences demonstrated higher specificity in predicting IDH mutation than that based on conventional and advanced MRI sequences (89% vs. 85%). • Integration of clinical and imaging features in machine learning yielded a higher sensitivity (90% vs. 83%) and specificity (90% vs. 82%) than that achieved by using imaging features alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32193643What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.