ReviewCureus2025
The Role of Machine Learning Approaches in Pediatric Oncology: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Applications of artificial intelligence in early childhood health management: a systematic review from fetal to pediatric periods.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Pooled it
- Acceptability and feasibility of digital gamified cognitive training intervention for preschool children with cancer-related cognitive late effects: a mixed-methods study.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Harnessing Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Oncology Diagnosis and Treatment: A Review.Cancers · 2025Review
- Development and validation of a machine learning model for predicting early postoperative complications after radical gastrectomy.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To enhance patient outcomes in pediatric cancer, a better understanding of the medical and biological risk variables is required. With the growing amount of data accessible to research in pediatric cancer, machine learning (ML) is a form of algorithmic inference from sophisticated statistical techniques. In addition to highlighting developments and prospects in the field, the objective of this systematic study was to methodically describe the state of ML in pediatric oncology. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to search for relevant studies on four distinct databases (Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane Library). A total of 1536 relevant studies were retrieved to the EndNote library (Clarivate, Philadelphia, USA) where duplicates were removed and the rest of the studies were assessed for eligibility based on titles, abstracts, and the availability of full-text articles. After assessing the studies for eligibility, we found 42 studies eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. We found nine studies on liquid tumors, 13 on solid tumors, and 20 on central nervous system (CNS) tumors. ML goals included classification, treatment response prediction, and dose optimization. Neural networks, k-nearest neighbors, random forests, support vector machines, and naive Bayes were among the techniques employed. The identified studies' strengths included treatment response prediction and automated analysis that matched or outperformed physician comparators. Significant variation in clinical applicability, criteria for reporting, limited sample numbers, and the absence of external validation cohorts were among the common issues. We found places where ML can improve clinical care in manners that would not be possible otherwise. Even though ML has great promise for enhancing pediatric cancer diagnosis, decision-making, and monitoring, the discipline is still in its infancy, and standards and recommendations will support future research to guarantee robust methodologic design and maximize therapeutic applicability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.