Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40078179›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025

AI models for the identification of prognostic and predictive biomarkers in lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hind M AlOsaimi, Aseel M Alshilash, Layan K Al-Saif, Jannat M Bosbait, Roaa S Albeladi, Dalal R Almutairi, Alwaleed A Alhazzaa, Tariq A Alluqmani, Saud M Al Qahtani, Sara A Almohammadi and 5 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

15 authors.

Hind M AlOsaimiDepartment of Pharmacy Services Administration, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh Second Health Cluster, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Aseel M AlshilashDepartment of Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons Ireland (RCSI) University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland.
Layan K Al-SaifDepartment of Medicine, Majmaah University, Almajmaah, Saudi Arabia.
Jannat M BosbaitDepartment of Medicine, King Faisal University, Alahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Roaa S AlbeladiDepartment of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Rabigh, Saudi Arabia.
Dalal R AlmutairiDepartment of Medicine, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Alwaleed A AlhazzaaDepartment of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Tariq A AlluqmaniDepartment of Medicine, Taibah University, Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah, Saudi Arabia.
Saud M Al QahtaniDepartment of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Sara A AlmohammadiUnaizah College of Pharmacy, Qassim University, Qassim, Saudi Arabia.
Razan A AlamriDepartment of Medicine, Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia.
Abdullah A AlkurdiDepartment of Medicine, Al Rayan National College of Medicine, Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah, Saudi Arabia.
Waleed K AljohaniDepartment of Medicine, Al Rayan National College of Medicine, Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah, Saudi Arabia.
Raghad H AlraddadiDepartment of Medicine, Al Rayan National College of Medicine, Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed K AlshammariDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the efficacy of artificial intelligence (AI) models in identifying prognostic and predictive biomarkers in lung cancer. With the increasing complexity of lung cancer subtypes and the need for personalized treatment strategies, AI-driven approaches offer a promising avenue for biomarker discovery and clinical decision-making. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in multiple electronic databases to identify relevant studies published up to date. Studies investigating AI models for the identification of prognostic and predictive biomarkers in lung cancer were included. Data extraction, quality assessment, and meta-analysis were performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Results: A total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing diverse AI methodologies and biomarker targets. AI models, particularly deep learning and machine learning algorithms demonstrated high accuracy in predicting biomarker status. Most of the studies developed models for the prediction of EGFR, followed by PD-L1 and ALK biomarkers in lung cancer. Internal and external validation techniques confirmed the robustness and generalizability of AI-driven predictions across heterogeneous patient cohorts. According to our results, the pooled sensitivity and pooled specificity of AI models for the prediction of biomarkers of lung cancer were 0.77 (95% CI: 0.72 - 0.82) and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.78 - 0.84). Conclusion: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis highlight the significant potential of AI models in facilitating non-invasive assessment of prognostic and predictive biomarkers in lung cancer. By enhancing diagnostic accuracy and guiding treatment selection, AI-driven approaches have the potential to revolutionize personalized oncology and improve patient outcomes in lung cancer management. Further research is warranted to validate and optimize the clinical utility of AI-driven biomarkers in large-scale prospective studies.

Indexed as

AI modelsidentificationlung cancermeta-analysisprognostic and predictive biomarkerssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40078179
PMCPMC11896857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.