Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35432113›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2022

Prediction Models for Radiation-Induced Neurocognitive Decline in Adult Patients With Primary or Secondary Brain Tumors: A Systematic Review.

Fariba Tohidinezhad, Dario Di Perri, Catharina M L Zegers, Jeanette Dijkstra, Monique Anten, Andre Dekker, Wouter Van Elmpt, Daniëlle B P Eekers, Alberto Traverso

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Reproducibility and interpretability in radiomics: a critical assessmentDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Fariba TohidinezhadDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro Clinic), School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (GROW), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Dario Di PerriDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, Belgium.
Catharina M L ZegersDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro Clinic), School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (GROW), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Jeanette DijkstraDepartment of Medical Psychology, School for Mental Health and Neurosciences (MHeNS), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Monique AntenDepartment of Neurology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Andre DekkerDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro Clinic), School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (GROW), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Wouter Van ElmptDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro Clinic), School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (GROW), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Daniëlle B P EekersDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro Clinic), School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (GROW), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Alberto TraversoDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro Clinic), School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (GROW), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Maastricht University · NLMaastro Clinic · NLCliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Although an increasing body of literature suggests a relationship between brain irradiation and deterioration of neurocognitive function, it remains as the standard therapeutic and prophylactic modality in patients with brain tumors. This review was aimed to abstract and evaluate the prediction models for radiation-induced neurocognitive decline in patients with primary or secondary brain tumors. Methods: MEDLINE was searched on October 31, 2021 for publications containing relevant truncation and MeSH terms related to "radiotherapy," "brain," "prediction model," and "neurocognitive impairments." Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool. Results: Of 3,580 studies reviewed, 23 prediction models were identified. Age, tumor location, education level, baseline neurocognitive score, and radiation dose to the hippocampus were the most common predictors in the models. The Hopkins verbal learning ( Conclusion: Existing models have limited quality and are at high risk of bias. Following recommendations are outlined in this review to improve future models: developing cognitive assessment instruments taking into account the peculiar traits of the different brain tumors and radiation modalities; adherence to model development and validation guidelines; careful choice of candidate predictors according to the literature and domain expert consensus; and considering radiation dose to brain substructures as they can provide important information on specific neurocognitive impairments.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecognitive dysfunctioncranial irradiationmachine learningneurotoxicity

Identifiers

PMID35432113
PMCPMC9009149
OpenAlexW4226134201

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.