Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37236811›Full record

SynthesisDiseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus2023

Performance of radiomics-based artificial intelligence systems in the diagnosis and prediction of treatment response and survival in esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.

Nainika Menon, Nadia Guidozzi, Swathikan Chidambaram, Sheraz Rehan Markar

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. 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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Nainika MenonDepartment of General Surgery, Oxford University Hospitals, Oxford, UK.
Nadia GuidozziDepartment of General Surgery, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Swathikan ChidambaramAcademic Surgical Unit, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK.
Sheraz Rehan MarkarDepartment of General Surgery, Oxford University Hospitals, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8650-2017
London Cancer · GBOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of the Witwatersrand · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiomics can interpret radiological images with more detail and in less time compared to the human eye. Some challenges in managing esophageal cancer can be addressed by incorporating radiomics into image interpretation, treatment planning, and predicting response and survival. This systematic review and meta-analysis provides a summary of the evidence of radiomics in esophageal cancer. The systematic review was carried out using Pubmed, MEDLINE, and Ovid EMBASE databases-articles describing radiomics in esophageal cancer were included. A meta-analysis was also performed; 50 studies were included. For the assessment of treatment response using 18F-FDG PET/computed tomography (CT) scans, seven studies (443 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 86.5% (81.1-90.6) and 87.1% (78.0-92.8). For the assessment of treatment response using CT scans, five studies (625 patients) were included in the meta-analysis, with a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 86.7% (81.4-90.7) and 76.1% (69.9-81.4). The remaining 37 studies formed the qualitative review, discussing radiomics in diagnosis, radiotherapy planning, and survival prediction. This review explores the wide-ranging possibilities of radiomics in esophageal cancer management. The sensitivities of 18F-FDG PET/CT scans and CT scans are comparable, but 18F-FDG PET/CT scans have improved specificity for AI-based prediction of treatment response. Models integrating clinical and radiomic features facilitate diagnosis and survival prediction. More research is required into comparing models and conducting large-scale studies to build a robust evidence base.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyArtificial IntelligenceFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansRadiomicsFluorodeoxyglucose F18esophageal cancersradiologyrobotics

Identifiers

PMID37236811
PMCPMC10789236
OpenAlexW4378363782

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.