ReviewCureus2025
Diagnostic Performance of Neural Network-Based Artificial Intelligence in the Detection and Classification of Pediatric Astrocytoma: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Artificial intelligence for pediatric neuroimaging.Pediatric radiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pediatric posterior fossa tumors, particularly astrocytomas, pose significant diagnostic challenges due to their histological diversity and overlapping imaging features. Conventional methods relying on radiologists' interpretations are prone to subjectivity and variability. Neural network-based artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool to enhance diagnostic accuracy. This systematic review evaluates the diagnostic performance of AI models in pediatric astrocytoma detection and classification, synthesizing evidence from six studies to assess strengths, limitations, and clinical applicability. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic search of PubMed, Excerpta Medica database (Embase), Web of Science, and Scopus identified 291 records. After deduplication, 102 studies underwent title/abstract screening, 26 advanced to full-text review, and six met inclusion criteria. Studies were included if they evaluated neural network-based AI for pediatric posterior fossa tumor diagnosis and reported quantitative performance metrics. Risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), and findings were synthesized narratively due to methodological heterogeneity. Included studies demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy for AI models, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) values exceeding 0.99 and classification accuracies up to 95%. AI frequently outperformed radiologists, particularly in distinguishing histologically similar tumors. Innovations like 3D texture analysis and multi-parametric Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) integration enhanced performance. However, the small number of included studies, limited sample sizes, and retrospective designs limit the generalizability of these findings. Methodological concerns, such as high risk of bias in patient selection and use of subjective reference standards, were also noted. Neural network-based AI shows transformative potential in pediatric astrocytoma diagnostics, offering superior accuracy and efficiency compared to conventional methods. Nonetheless, clinical translation requires addressing these methodological limitations, along with enhancing dataset diversity, ensuring prospective validation, and considering ethical implications. Future research should prioritize multi-center trials, explainable AI frameworks, and integration of multi-modal data to bridge the gap between experimental models and real-world clinical practice.
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.