SynthesisBMC cancer2025
Machine learning in prediction of epidermal growth factor receptor status in non-small cell lung cancer brain metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond the primary site: Molecular insights and clinical implications of cancer metastatic overlap between lung and urological organ cancers (Review).Molecular medicine reports · 2026Review
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of AI in lung cancer metastasis imaging for diagnosis and prognosis.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in non-small cell lung cancer: transforming diagnosis, treatment, and prognostic evaluation.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Personalized Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Development and validation of a prognosis model for patients with brain-metastasis non-small cell lung cancer by machine-learning.Translational cancer research · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEpidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations are present in 10-60% of all non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients and are associated with dismal prognosis. Lung cancer brain metastases (LCBM) are a common complication of lung cancer. Predictions of EGFR can help physicians in decision-making and, through optimizing treatment strategies, can result in more favorable outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the predictive performance of machine learning (ML)-based models in EGFR status in NSCLC patients with brain metastasis.
methodsOn December 20, 2024, the four electronic databases, Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science, were systematically searched. Studies that evaluated EGFR status in patients with brain metastasis from NSCLC were included.
resultsTwenty studies with 3517 patients with 6205 NSCLC brain metastatic lesions were included. The majority of the best-performance models were ML-based (70%, 7/10), and deep learning (DL)-based models comprised 30% (6/20) of models. The area under the curve (AUC) and accuracy (ACC) of the best-performance models ranged from 0.765 to 1 and 0.69 to 0.93, respectively. The meta-analysis of the best-performance model revealed a pooled AUC of 0.91 (95%CI: 0.88-0.93) and ACC of 0.82 (95%CI: 0.79-0.86) along with a pooled sensitivity of 0.87 (95%CI: 0.83-0.9), specificity of 0.86 (95%CI: 0.79-0.9), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 35.2 (95%CI: 21.2-58.4). The subgroup analysis did not show significant differences between ML and DL models.
conclusionML-based models demonstrated promising predictive outcomes in predicting EGFR status. Applying ML-based models in daily clinical practice can optimize treatment strategies and enhance clinical and radiological outcomes.
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.