SynthesisEuropean radiology2026
Diagnostic performance of deep learning for predicting glioma isocitrate dehydrogenase and 1p/19q co-deletion in MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Artificial Intelligence in Predicting Prostate Cancer Biochemical Recurrence: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- The Performance of Artificial Intelligence in Classifying Molecular Markers in Adult-Type Gliomas Using Histopathological Images: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Brain Tumor Segmentation and Grading on MRI Using Deep Learning: A Systematic Literature Review and Benchmark-Driven Comparative Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Machine learning in neuroradiology: Recent developments and applications.World journal of radiology · 2026Review
- Exploring the role of advanced MRI in understanding glioblastoma biology: A scoping review protocol.MethodsX · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Oncology: A Comprehensive Cross-Cancer Translational Readiness Analysis Across 18 Malignancies.Cancers · 2026Review
- Isocitrate Dehydrogenase-Mutant Astrocytomas: Risk Stratification and Therapeutic Advance.MedComm · 2026Review
- IDH Mutation Assessment in Gliomas from Anatomical MRI Using Deep Learning: A Comparative Analysis of Centralized and Federated Learning Frameworks.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Exploring the Role of Advanced MRI in Understanding Glioblastoma Biology: A Scoping Review.Cancers · 2026Review
- Review
- Externally validated explainable 3D CNN ensemble model for non-invasive prediction of IDH and MGMT status in gliomas.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Deep Learning Models in Predicting Glioma Molecular Markers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of deep learning (DL)-based radiomics models for the noninvasive prediction of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation and 1p/19q co-deletion status in glioma patients using MRI sequences, and to identify methodological factors influencing accuracy and generalizability. MATERIALS AND
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched major databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) up to March 2025, screening studies that utilized DL to predict IDH and 1p/19q co-deletion status from MRI data. We assessed study quality and risk of bias using the Radiomics Quality Score and the QUADAS-2 tool. Our meta-analysis employed a bivariate model to compute pooled sensitivity and specificity, and meta-regression to assess interstudy heterogeneity.
resultsAmong the 1517 unique publications, 104 were included in the qualitative synthesis, and 72 underwent meta-analysis. Pooled estimates for IDH prediction in test cohorts yielded a sensitivity of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.77-0.83) and specificity of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.81-0.87). For 1p/19q co-deletion, sensitivity was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.65-0.82) and specificity was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.75-0.88). Meta-regression identified the tumor segmentation method and the extent of DL integration into the radiomics pipeline as significant contributors to interstudy variability.
conclusionAlthough DL models demonstrate strong potential for noninvasive molecular classification of gliomas, clinical translation requires several critical steps: harmonization of multi-center MRI data using techniques such as histogram matching and DL-based style transfer; adoption of standardized and automated segmentation protocols; extensive multi-center external validation; and prospective clinical validation. KEY POINTS: Question Can DL based radiomics using routine MRI noninvasively predict IDH mutation and 1p/19q co-deletion status in gliomas, and what factors affect diagnostic accuracy? Findings Meta-analysis showed 80% sensitivity and 85% specificity for predicting IDH mutation, and 75% sensitivity and 82% specificity for 1p/19q co-deletion status. Clinical relevance MRI-based DL models demonstrate clinically useful accuracy for noninvasive glioma molecular classification, but data harmonization, standardized automated segmentation, and rigorous multi-center external validation are essential for clinical adoption.
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.