Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40817944›Full record

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.

Somayeh Farahani, Marjaneh Hejazi, Mehnaz Tabassum, Antonio Di Ieva, Neda Mahdavifar, Sidong Liu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Somayeh FarahaniDepartment of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. somayeh.farahani@hdr.mq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5248-4110
Marjaneh HejaziDepartment of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1823-2876
Mehnaz TabassumCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9969-4820
Antonio Di IevaComputational NeuroSurgery (CNS) Lab, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie Medical School, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5341-5416
Neda MahdavifarDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5764-7978
Sidong LiuCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2371-0713

Funding

NHMRC Ideas Grant GNT202035
6 · The paper itself

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

Brain NeoplasmsChromosome DeletionDeep LearningGliomaIsocitrate DehydrogenaseMagnetic Resonance ImagingChromosomes, Human, Pair 1Chromosomes, Human, Pair 19HumansSensitivity and SpecificityIsocitrate DehydrogenaseDeep learningGliomaIsocitrate dehydrogenaseMagnetic resonance imagingRadiomics

Identifiers

PMID40817944
PMCPMC12953305

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.