Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40900793›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025

Integrating radiomics, artificial intelligence, and molecular signatures in bone and soft tissue tumors: advances in diagnosis and prognostication.

Guochao Li, Peipei Feng, Yayun Lin, Peng Liang

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

4 authors.

Guochao LiDepartment of Imaging, Yantaishan Hospital, Yantai, Shangdong, China.
Peipei FengDepartment of Imaging, Yantaishan Hospital, Yantai, Shangdong, China.
Yayun LinDepartment of Ultrasonography, Yantaishan Hospital, Yantai, Shangdong, China.
Peng LiangDepartment of Imaging, Yantaishan Hospital, Yantai, Shangdong, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic review evaluates the integration of radiomics, artificial intelligence (AI), and molecular signatures for diagnosing and prognosticating bone and soft tissue tumors (BSTTs). Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we analyzed 24 studies from 1,141 initial records across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Our findings reveal that while radiomics-AI pipelines are well-developed for BSTT assessment - particularly using MRI (72% of studies) and CT (25%) with machine learning classifiers like random forests (42%) and CNNs (17%) - molecular data integration remains virtually absent. Only 2 studies incorporated histopathological correlations, and none achieved full tri-modal integration of imaging, AI, and omics data. Key applications included tumor grading (58% of studies), chemotherapy response prediction (33%), and metastasis detection (21%), with median AUCs of 0.82-0.91 in validated models. Critical gaps identified include: (1) lack of standardized multi-omic feature fusion methods, (2) limited external validation (only 17% of studies), and (3) insufficient explainability in deep learning approaches. The review highlights an urgent need for attention-based neural networks and graph-based models to bridge imaging-molecular divides, alongside consensus protocols for radiogenomic dataset sharing. These insights establish a roadmap for developing clinically translatable, multi-modal diagnostic systems in musculoskeletal oncology.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencebone and soft tissue tumorsmolecular signaturesradiogenomicsradiomics

Identifiers

PMID40900793
PMCPMC12399666

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.