ReviewJournal of bone oncology2025
Artificial Intelligence in bone Metastases: A systematic review in guideline adherence of 92 studies.
Review in Journal of bone oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence for bone metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic and prognostic performance.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Explainable Deep Learning Model for Predicting Overall Survival in Patients Receiving Palliative Radiotherapy for Bone Metastases.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Post-operative survival and use of systemic therapy in metastatic long-bone disease: 12 years of institutional experience.Journal of bone oncology · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Bone Metastasis Management: A Narrative Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The last decade has witnessed a surge in artificial intelligence (AI). With bone metastases becoming more prevalent, there is an increasing call for personalized treatment options, a domain where AI can greatly contribute. However, integrating AI into clinical settings has proven to be difficult. Therefore, we aimed to provide an overview of AI modalities for treating bone metastases and recommend implementation-worthy models based on TRIPOD, CLAIM, and UPM scores. Methods: This systematic review included 92 studies on AI models in bone metastases between 2008 and 2024. Using three assessment tools we provided a reliable foundation for recommending AI modalities fit for clinical use (TRIPOD or CLAIM ≥ 70 % and UPM score ≥ 10). Results: Most models focused on survival prediction (44/92;48%), followed by imaging studies (37/92;40%). Median TRIPOD completeness was 70% (IQR 64-81%), CLAIM completeness was 57% (IQR 48-67%), and UPM score was 7 (IQR 5-9). In total, 10% (9/92) AI modalities were deemed fit for clinical use. Conclusion: Transparent reporting, utilizing the aforementioned three evaluation tools, is essential for effectively integrating AI models into clinical practice, as currently, only 10% of AI models for bone metastases are deemed fit for clinical use. Such transparency ensures that both patients and clinicians can benefit from clinically useful AI models, potentially enhancing AI-driven personalized cancer treatment.
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.