Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40337637›Full record

ReviewJournal of bone oncology2025

Artificial Intelligence in bone Metastases: A systematic review in guideline adherence of 92 studies.

Lotte R van der Linden, Ioannis Vavliakis, Tom M de Groot, Paul C Jutte, Job N Doornberg, Santiago A Lozano-Calderon, Olivier Q Groot

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

7 authors.

Lotte R van der LindenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Ioannis VavliakisDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Tom M de GrootDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Paul C JutteDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Job N DoornbergDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Santiago A Lozano-CalderonDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Olivier Q GrootDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceGuidelinesMachine LearningMetastatic bone diseaseSystematic Review

Identifiers

PMID40337637
PMCPMC12056386

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.