Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39720966›Full record

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.

Geraldo Lucas Lopes Costa, Guido Tasca Petroski, Luis Guilherme Machado, Bruno Eulalio Santos, Fernanda de Oliveira Ramos, Leo Max Feuerschuette Neto, Graziela De Luca Canto

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

7 authors.

Geraldo Lucas Lopes CostaFederal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil. gerrard_lucas@hotmail.com.
Guido Tasca PetroskiFederal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
Luis Guilherme MachadoFederal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
Bruno Eulalio SantosFederal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
Fernanda de Oliveira RamosFederal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
Leo Max Feuerschuette NetoRadiology Department, Ultralitho Centro Médico, Florianópolis, Brazil.
Graziela De Luca CantoBrazilian Center for Evidence-Based Research, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Carcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalMachine LearningPancreatic NeoplasmsRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray ComputedContrast MediaHumansSensitivity and SpecificityContrast MediaCTDiagnosisMachine learningPancreatic cancerSystematic review

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.