SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
The role of artificial intelligence in predicting the clinical outcomes associated with different therapeutic approaches for vestibular schwannoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVestibular schwannoma is the most common neoplasm located at the skull base. The therapeutic strategy for managing vestibular schwannoma is formulated based on individual patient characteristics and specific imaging findings. Recently, there has been a growing interest in applying artificial intelligence (AI) to predict treatment outcomes in the field of neurosurgical oncology.
aimThis systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy of AI algorithms in predicting outcomes associated with various therapeutic strategies for vestibular schwannoma. METHOD AND MATERIAL: The study was conducted under PRISMA guidelines, involving comprehensive data extraction from multiple databases, specifically PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, until January 31, 2025. Statistical analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-analysis (CMA) software version 3.0.
resultsThis systematic review and meta-analysis included data from 21 studies. AI algorithms achieved an area under the curve of 0.80 in predicting microsurgery outcomes, with an accuracy (positive predictions regardless of whether they are positive or negative) of 81.5% and sensitivity (true positive rate) of 83%. In subgroup analysis, AI showed better accuracy for forecasting facial function than for hearing preservation following microsurgery. For tumor control after radiosurgery, the AUC was 0.722 with an accuracy of 58.5%, while predicting tumor progression after conservative management yielded an AUC of 0.912 and 87.5% accuracy.
conclusionAI algorithms can be valuable prognostic tools for evaluating outcomes across therapeutic interventions. Nonetheless, further prospective studies are essential to establish the optimal model for clinical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41062842What 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.