SynthesisJornal brasileiro de nefrologia
Artificial Intelligence computed tomography models for the discrimination of Wilms versus non-Wilms tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Jornal brasileiro de nefrologia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in pediatric Wilms tumor imaging: diagnostic performance and the need for clinical oversight.Jornal brasileiro de nefrologiaArticle
- Artificial intelligence computed tomography models for the discrimination of Wilms versus non-Wilms tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis.Jornal brasileiro de nefrologiaArticle
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
objectiveTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of artificial intelligence (AI) models aimed at identify Wilms tumor on computed tomography (CT) scans.
methodsA search was carried out across MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Diagnostic studies using AI-based CT to diagnose Wilms tumor were included if they reported sensitivity, specificity, and AUC. Studies with incomplete data or lacking full-text availability were excluded. Statistical analysis was conducted in R (v4.3.3) using a random-effects model, with logit transformation for univariate analysis and SROC curve construction for bivariate analysis. Heterogeneity (I2 ≥ 40%) was assessed and explored via sensitivity analysis.
resultsThe analysis included four studies (three studies from China and one from Turkey) with 177 patients with Wilms tumors and 62 without Wilms tumors. The combined analysis of all models demonstrated a sensitivity of 63.9% (95% CI: 0.533-0.734), a specificity of 82.8% (95% CI: 0.716-0.902), and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.831 (95% CI: 0.607-0.883).
conclusionThis study demonstrated that AI models exhibit moderate sensitivity and high specificity to identify Wilms tumor on CT scans, with an overall AUC of 0.831. These results underscore the promise of AI as a supportive tool in diagnostic imaging, although the limited number of studies and notable methodological heterogeneity warrant cautious interpretation and reinforce the need for validation in larger, more representative populations.
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.