Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39640942›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024

From simple factors to artificial intelligence: evolution of prognosis prediction in childhood cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Petra Varga, Mahmoud Obeidat, Vanda Máté, Tamás Kói, Szilvia Kiss-Dala, Gréta Szilvia Major, Ágnes Eszter Tímár, Ximeng Li, Ádám Szilágyi, Zsófia Csáki and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

15 authors.

Petra VargaCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Mahmoud ObeidatCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Vanda MátéCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Tamás KóiCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Szilvia Kiss-DalaCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Gréta Szilvia MajorCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Ágnes Eszter TímárCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Ximeng LiCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Ádám SzilágyiCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Zsófia CsákiCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Marie Anne EnghCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Miklós GaramiCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Péter HegyiCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Ibolya TúriCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Eszter TubolyCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Current paediatric cancer care requires innovative approaches to predict prognosis that facilitates personalised stratification, yet studies on the performance, composition and limitations of contemporary prognostic models are lacking. We aimed to compare the accuracy of traditional and advanced prognostic models. Methods: A systematic search for this systematic review and meta-analysis (CRTN42022370251) was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases on 28 June 2024. Studies on the accuracy of prognostic markers or models used in paediatric haematological malignancies, central nervous system (CNS), or non-CNS solid tumours (NCNSST) were included. Three model categories were defined using: 1-clinical parameters, 2-genomic-transcriptomic data, and 3-artificial intelligence (AI). Primary outcomes were area under the receiver operating characteristic curve with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for various overall survival intervals and event-free survival. Two independent groups performed selection and data extraction. We used data published by the authors and publicly available databases. Findings: Of 12,982 studies, 358 were included in the meta-analysis and 27 in the systematic review, with limited data on AI-approaches. Most data were reported on NCNSST at 5-year OS, where a statistically significant difference was observed between Category-1 (0.75 CI: 0.72-0.79) and Category-2 (0.85 CI: 0.82-0.88) (p < 0.001), but not between Categories-2 and -3 (p = 0.2834) (0.82 CI: 0.77-0.88). Internal validation studies showed significantly better performance compared to those using external validation, highlighting the high risk of bias (ROB) inherent in internal validation. High ROB was most commonly experienced in the outcomes and statistical analysis domains, assessed using PROBAST and QUIPS. Interpretation: It is advisable to introduce Category-2 and -3 models in a clinical setting, especially for NCNSST prognostic for aiding risk-stratification. Although AI-supported predictions in paediatric oncology are at an early stage of development, it is imperative to further explore their potential. This requires structured data collection and ethical sharing from paediatric oncology patients in sufficient quantity and quality. Funding: None.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceBiobank dataNext-generation sequencingPaediatric oncologyPrognosis predictionPrognostic modelPublic database

Identifiers

PMID39640942
PMCPMC11617957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.