Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40312890›Full record

SynthesisActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2025

Performance of radiomics analysis in ultrasound imaging for differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Francesca Moro, Marianna Ciancia, Maria Sciuto, Giulia Baldassari, Huong Elena Tran, Antonella Carcagnì, Anna Fagotti, Antonia Carla Testa

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Developing and validating ultrasound-based machine-learning models incorporating radiomics features to predict malignancy in adnexal masses.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026
    Observational
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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

8 authors.

Francesca MoroUniCamillus-International Medical University, Rome, Italy.
Marianna CianciaDepartment of Women's, Child and Public Health Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-9443-1834
Maria SciutoDepartment of Life Sciences and Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Giulia BaldassariRadiomics G-STeP Research Core Facility, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Huong Elena TranRadiomics G-STeP Research Core Facility, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Antonella CarcagnìEpidemiology and Biostatistics Facility, G-STeP Generator, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Anna FagottiDepartment of Women's, Child and Public Health Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Antonia Carla TestaDepartment of Women's, Child and Public Health Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWe present the state of the art of ultrasound-based machine learning (ML) radiomics models in the context of ovarian masses and analyze their accuracy in differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal masses. MATERIAL AND

methodsWeb of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases were searched. All studies were imported into RAYYAN QCRI software. All studies that developed and internally or externally validated ML models using only radiomics features extracted from ultrasound images were included. The overall quality of the included studies was assessed using the QUADAS-AI tool. Summary sensitivity and specificity analyses with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported.

results12 studies developed ML models including only radiomics features extracted from ultrasound images, and six of them were included in the meta-analysis. The overall sensitivity and specificity for differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses were 0.80 (95% CI 0.74-0.87) and 0.86 (95% CI 0.80-0.90), respectively, in the validation set. All studies demonstrated a high risk of bias in subject selection (e.g., lack of details on image sources or scanner models; absence of image preprocessing), and the majority also showed a high risk in the index test (e.g., models were not validated on external datasets) domain. In contrast, the risk of bias was generally low for the reference standard (i.e., most studies used a reference that accurately identified the target condition) and the testing workflow (i.e., the time interval between the index test and reference standard was appropriate) domains.

conclusionsThe good performance of ultrasound-based radiomics models in the validation set supports that radiomics is worth exploring to improve the diagnosis of adnexal masses. So far, the studies have a high risk of bias due to the small sample size, single-setting design, and no external validation included.

Indexed as

Adnexal DiseasesMachine LearningOvarian NeoplasmsDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansRadiomicsSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonographyartificial intelligencemachine learningovarian cancerradiomicsultrasonography

Identifiers

PMID40312890
PMCPMC12283166

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.