Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40735661›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

Performance Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence Techniques in the Diagnosis of Brain Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Ghaya Al-Rumaihi, Muhammad Mohsin Khan, Ahmed Saleh, Arshad Ali, Latifa Al-Romaihi, Noor Al-Jaber, Ghanem Al-Suliaiti, Muhammad Eh Chowdhury, Giridhara Rathnaiah Babu, Shona Pedersen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

10 authors.

Ghaya Al-RumaihiNeurosurgery, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, QAT.
Muhammad Mohsin KhanNeurosurgery, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, QAT.
Ahmed SalehNeurosurgery, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, QAT.
Arshad AliNeurosurgery, Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Doha, QAT.
Latifa Al-RomaihiMedicine, Women's Wellness and Research Center, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, QAT.
Noor Al-JaberGeneral Pediatrics, Sidra Medicine, Doha, QAT.
Ghanem Al-SuliaitiNeurosurgery, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, QAT.
Muhammad Eh ChowdhuryElectrical Engineering, Qatar University, Doha, QAT.
Giridhara Rathnaiah BabuCollege of Medicine, Qatar University, Doha, QAT.
Shona PedersenCollege of Medicine, Qatar University, Doha, QAT.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain tumors are becoming more prevalent, often leading to severe disability and high mortality rates due to their poor prognoses. Early detection is critical for improving patient outcomes. These tumors pose substantial diagnostic challenges because of their varied manifestations, necessitating timely and accurate diagnosis. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have shown the potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy, especially through MRI analysis. We analyzed the performance of AI algorithms for various types of tumors as well as for different diagnostic goals, with special consideration of assessing the accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score of AI for recognizing gliomas, meningiomas, and pituitary tumors, as well as for identifying tumor versus non-tumor tissue. By integrating both the performance metrics and the methodology used, this review offers an overall comparative analysis of AI-based diagnostic methods on brain tumor images. This study aims to systematically review the use of AI techniques in diagnosing brain tumors through MRI scans, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We conducted a search across multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. Our search encompassed publications from 2000 to February 2024. In total, we identified 79 studies that met our inclusion criteria. These criteria required the use of MRI for brain tumor detection and classification, and the utilization of clearly defined performance metrics such as precision, recall, F1 score, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. To assess the quality of the studies, we employed the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Our meta-analysis specifically focused on evaluating the performance of different algorithms in relation to various types of brain tumors. The analysis incorporated data from seven selected articles. The meta-analysis shows that AI methods accurately diagnose brain tumors using MRI. The overall F1 score ranges from 0.945 to 0.958, with an estimated accuracy of 0.952. The top performers in this field are convolutional neural networks (CNNs), ensemble algorithms, and support vector machines. Among these, CNNs have a slightly higher F1 score (0.953) compared to ensemble algorithms (0.949). The accuracy varies depending on the tumor type, with gliomas having an F1 score of 0.961, pituitary tumors at 0.955, and meningiomas at 0.950. The meta-regression analysis reveals that tumor type significantly influences accuracy, with lower scores observed in the "tumor/no tumor" category. AI models demonstrate high diagnostic accuracy in controlled research settings (pooled accuracy: 0.952, 95% CI: 0.945-0.958), but significant heterogeneity (I²=40.75%) and performance variability across tumor types limit broad clinical generalizability. CNNs and ensemble algorithms show consistent results for glioma and pituitary tumors, but evidence for clinical deployment remains preliminary.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencebrain gliomabrain meningiomabrain tumorcomputer aided diagnosis (cad)pituitary tumor

Identifiers

PMID40735661
PMCPMC12306512

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.