SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
Identifying sinonasal inverted papilloma by machine learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Sinonasal inverted papilloma (IP) is a benign tumor of the sinonasal mucosa, which may become malignant. Machine learning (ML) has been applied to improve the accuracy in the diagnosis of various diseases, but no studies have evaluated the performance of ML for IP diagnosis. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to explore the diagnostic performance of ML for IP. Methods: We systematically searched articles from PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science up to July 22, 2025. The quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (QUADAS-2) was used to assess the risk of bias, and the bivariate mixed-effect model was used for meta-analysis. Results: 17 studies involving 3321 participants were included. In the validation set, the sensitivity and specificity of ML constructed based on radiomics for identifying IP and malignant tumors were 0.84 (95%CI: 0.77-0.89) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.74 ~ 0.88), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of ML constructed based on radiomics and clinical features for identifying IP and malignant tumors were 0.85 (95%CI: 0.78-0.90) and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.80 ~ 0.92), respectively. Conclusion: Our study shows that ML has a favorable performance in the differential diagnosis of IP. More prospective studies are needed to validate and develop universal tools. Systemic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023430417, identifier CRD42023430417.
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.