Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39527265›Full record

SynthesisNeuroradiology2025

Diagnostic accuracy of radiomics and artificial intelligence models in diagnosing lymph node metastasis in head and neck cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Parya Valizadeh, Payam Jannatdoust, Mohammad-Taha Pahlevan-Fallahy, Amir Hassankhani, Melika Amoukhteh, Sara Bagherieh, Delaram J Ghadimi, Ali Gholamrezanezhad

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neuroradiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Machine learning based prediction of recurrence in oral tongue cancer: a systematic review with quantitative synthesis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Translational cancer research · 2025
    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

8 authors.

Parya Valizadeh *School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Payam Jannatdoust *School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mohammad-Taha Pahlevan-FallahySchool of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Amir HassankhaniDepartment of Radiology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California (USC), 1441 Eastlake Ave Ste 2315, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA.
Melika AmoukhtehDepartment of Radiology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California (USC), 1441 Eastlake Ave Ste 2315, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA.
Sara BagheriehSchool of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Delaram J GhadimiSchool of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Ali GholamrezanezhadDepartment of Radiology, Los Angeles General Hospital, Los Angeles, CA, USA. a.gholamrezanezhad@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6930-4246

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHead and neck cancers are the seventh most common globally, with lymph node metastasis (LNM) being a critical prognostic factor, significantly reducing survival rates. Traditional imaging methods have limitations in accurately diagnosing LNM. This meta-analysis aims to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of Artificial Intelligence (AI) models in detecting LNM in head and neck cancers.

methodsA systematic search was performed on four databases, looking for studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of AI models in detecting LNM in head and neck cancers. Methodological quality was assessed using the METRICS tool and meta-analysis was performed using bivariate model in R environment.

results23 articles met the inclusion criteria. Due to the absence of external validation in most studies, all analyses were confined to internal validation sets. The meta-analysis revealed a pooled AUC of 91% for CT-based radiomics, 84% for MRI-based radiomics, and 92% for PET/CT-based radiomics. Sensitivity and specificity were highest for PET/CT-based models. The pooled AUC was 92% for deep learning models and 91% for hand-crafted radiomics models. Models based on lymph node features had a pooled AUC of 92%, while those based on primary tumor features had an AUC of 89%. No significant differences were found between deep learning and hand-crafted radiomics models or between lymph node and primary tumor feature-based models.

conclusionRadiomics and deep learning models exhibit promising accuracy in diagnosing LNM in head and neck cancers, particularly with PET/CT. Future research should prioritize multicenter studies with external validation to confirm these results and enhance clinical applicability.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceHead and Neck NeoplasmsLymphatic MetastasisHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyRadiomicsSensitivity and SpecificityDeep learningHead and neck cancerLymph node metastasisPET/CT imagingRadiomics

Identifiers

PMID39527265
PMCPMC11893643

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.