SynthesisAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
Accuracy of machine learning models for pre-diagnosis and diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in contrast-CT images: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Deep learning models for pancreatic cancer detection on CT: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the diagnostic ability and methodological quality of ML models in detecting Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in Contrast CT images.
methodIncluded studies assessed adults diagnosed with PDAC, confirmed by histopathology. Metrics of tests were interpreted by ML algorithms. Studies provided data on sensitivity and specificity. Studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria, segmentation-focused studies, multiple classifiers or non-diagnostic studies were excluded. PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase were searched without restrictions. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2, methodological quality was evaluated using Radiomics Quality Score (RQS) and a Checklist for AI in Medical Imaging (CLAIM). Bivariate random-effects models were used for meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity, I
resultsNine studies were included and 12,788 participants were evaluated, of which 3,997 were included in the meta-analysis. AI models based on CT scans showed an accuracy of 88.7% (IC 95%, 87.7%-89.7%), sensitivity of 87.9% (95% CI, 82.9%-91.6%), and specificity of 92.2% (95% CI, 86.8%-95.5%). The average score of six radiomics studies was 17.83 RQS points. Nine ML methods had an average CLAIM score of 30.55 points.
conclusionsOur study is the first to quantitatively interpret various independent research, offering insights for clinical application. Despite favorable sensitivity and specificity results, the studies were of low quality, limiting definitive conclusions. Further research is necessary to validate these models before widespread adoption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39720966What 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.