SynthesisThe Laryngoscope2026
Machine Learning to Predict Extranodal Extension in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in The Laryngoscope, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine Learning to Predict Extranodal Extension in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.The Laryngoscope · 2026Pooled it
- An explainable multimodal 2.5D deep learning-radiomics model for predicting extranodal extension in lung adenocarcinoma using preoperative CT: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Imaging-Detected Extranodal Extension in Head and Neck Cancer: Current Evidence, Standardized Grading, and Clinical Implications.Korean journal of radiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the clinical utility of machine learning algorithms (MLAs) in diagnosing extra-nodal extension (ENE) using CT imaging in HNSCC. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive literature search was conducted on MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science, from January 1, 2000, to February 12, 2025. REVIEW
methodsTwo independent reviewers selected studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of MLAs in detecting ENE in patients with HNSCC. The review followed PRISMA guidelines. Meta-analysis was performed using MedCalc (23.0.2), with pooled estimates of the area under the curve (AUC) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. The Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) was used to analyze the methodological quality of the included studies.
resultsOf 57 articles retrieved, six met inclusion criteria, encompassing 2870 lymph nodes from 1407 patients. MLAs achieved a pooled AUC of 0.92 (95% CI [0.915, 0.923], p < 0.001; fixed-effects) and 0.91 (95% CI [0.882, 0.929], p < 0.001; random-effects), outperforming radiologists who had pooled AUCs of 0.65 (95% CI [0.645-0.654], p < 0.001; fixed-effects) and 0.65 (95% CI [0.591-0.708], p < 0.001; random-effects). Furthermore, MLA achieved a sensitivity ranging from 66.9% to 91.2%, compared to 24% to 96.0% by radiologists. The specificity and accuracy of MLA ranged from 72% to 96.2% and 66% to 92.2%, respectively, compared to that of radiologists, which ranged from 43.0% to 96.0% and 51.5% to 88.6%, respectively.
conclusionMLAs demonstrate superior diagnostic performance in predicting ENE in HNSCC and may serve as a valuable adjunct to radiologists in clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1:
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.