Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39849257›Full record

SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025

Performance of Radiomics-based machine learning and deep learning-based methods in the prediction of tumor grade in meningioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Roozbeh Tavanaei, Mohammadhosein Akhlaghpasand, Alireza Alikhani, Bardia Hajikarimloo, Ali Ansari, Raymund L Yong, Konstantinos Margetis

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Brain MRI Radiomic First-Order Features for Presurgical Prediction of Meningioma Grading.Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging
    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

7 authors.

Roozbeh TavanaeiFunctional Neurosurgery Research Center, Shohada Tajrish Comprehensive Neurosurgical Center of Excellence, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mohammadhosein AkhlaghpasandFunctional Neurosurgery Research Center, Shohada Tajrish Comprehensive Neurosurgical Center of Excellence, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Alireza AlikhaniFunctional Neurosurgery Research Center, Shohada Tajrish Comprehensive Neurosurgical Center of Excellence, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Bardia HajikarimlooDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Ali AnsariStudent Research Committee, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Raymund L YongDepartment of Neurosurgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, Icahn School of Medicine, New York City, NY, USA.
Konstantinos MargetisDepartment of Neurosurgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, Icahn School of Medicine, New York City, NY, USA. konstantinos.margetis@mountsinai.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently, the World Health Organization (WHO) grade of meningiomas is determined based on the biopsy results. Therefore, accurate non-invasive preoperative grading could significantly improve treatment planning and patient outcomes. Considering recent advances in machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of these models in predicting the WHO meningioma grade using imaging data. A systematic search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies published up to April 1, 2024, and reporting the performance metrics of the ML models in predicting of WHO meningioma grade using imaging studies. Pooled area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC), specificity, and sensitivity were estimated. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed based on a number of potential influencing variables. A total of 32 studies with 15,365 patients were included in the present study. The overall pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUROC of ML methods for prediction of tumor grade in meningioma were 85% (95% CI, 79-89%), 87% (95% CI, 81-91%), and 93% (95% CI, 90-95%), respectively. Both the type of validation and study cohort (training or test) were significantly associated with model performance. However, no significant association was found between the sample size or the type of ML method and model performance. The ML predictive models show a high overall performance in predicting the WHO meningioma grade using imaging data. Further studies on the performance of DL algorithms in larger datasets using external validation are needed.

Indexed as

Deep LearningMachine LearningMeningeal NeoplasmsMeningiomaHumansNeoplasm GradingRadiomicsArtificial intelligenceDeep learningMachine learningMeningiomaMeta-analysis

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.