SynthesisEuropean radiology2025
Artificial intelligence in magnetic resonance imaging for predicting lymph node metastasis in rectal cancer patients: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European radiology, 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.
- Pooled 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis meta-analysis aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based artificial intelligence (AI) in the preoperative detection of lymph node metastasis (LNM) in patients with rectal cancer and to compare it with the diagnostic performance of radiologists.
methodsA thorough literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to identify relevant studies published up to September 2024. The selected studies focused on the diagnostic performance of MRI-based AI in detecting rectal cancer LNM. A bivariate random-effects model was employed to calculate pooled sensitivity and specificity, each reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Study heterogeneity was assessed using the I
resultsSeventeen studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) for MRI-based AI in detecting preoperative LNM in rectal cancer were 0.71 (95% CI: 0.66-0.74), 0.71 (95% CI: 0.67-0.75), and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.73-0.80), respectively. For radiologists, these values were 0.64 (95% CI: 0.49-0.77), 0.72 (95% CI: 0.62-0.80), and 0.74 (95% CI: 0.68-0.80). Both analyses showed no significant publication bias (p > 0.05).
conclusionsMRI-based AI demonstrates diagnostic performance similar to that of radiologists. The high heterogeneity among studies limits the strength of these findings, and further research with external validation datasets is necessary to confirm the results and assess their practical clinical value. KEY POINTS: Question How effective is MRI-based AI in detecting LNM in rectal cancer patients compared to traditional radiology methods? Findings The diagnostic performance of MRI-based AI is comparable to radiologists, with pooled sensitivity and specificity both at 0.71, indicating moderate accuracy. Clinical relevance Integrating MRI-based AI can enhance diagnostic efficiency in identifying LNM, especially in settings with limited access to skilled radiologists, but requires further validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40220146What 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.