SynthesisJournal of neuro-oncology2025
Performance of artificial intelligence for brain tumor segmentation, treatment planning, and outcome prediction: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in radiation treatment planning: a narrative review from automation to clinical decision support.Translational cancer research · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) tools for neuro-oncology are rapidly entering clinical workflows for image segmentation, treatment planning, and outcome prediction, yet their real-world performance and clinical correlates remain uncertain. We conducted a meta-analysis to synthesize diagnostic/predictive accuracy, segmentation quality, dosimetric surrogates, clinician override, and patient outcomes across studies.
methodsWe searched major databases, for studies reporting quantitative performance for AI models applied to brain tumors radiotherapy. Outcomes were pooled using random-effects models with inverse-variance weighting. We conducted prespecified subgroup analyses. Heterogeneity was performed.
resultsAcross all AI tasks, AUC was 0.856, higher for planning than outcome prediction. DSC was 0.840. Accuracy was 0.842, with planning 0.852, outcome prediction 0.824, metastases 0.863, and glioma 0.875. Sensitivity was 0.854 (planning 0.886; outcome 0.817; metastases 0.848; glioma 0.914). Specificity was 0.845 (planning 0.953; outcome 0.793; metastases 0.856). HD was 8.51 mm, 4.46 mm for metastases and 10.07 mm for glioma. Dosimetric conformity was 0.900 and 0.917 in metastases; target coverage was 0.976 (0.969 in metastases). Physician override rate was 0.258 (0.332 in metastases). OS was 19.13 months, 15.5 in metastases, and 17.53 in glioblastoma.
conclusionsAI for brain tumors radiotherapy demonstrates strong pooled discrimination and robust segmentation with encouraging dosimetric surrogates and high target coverage. AI-assisted segmentation and planning could streamline radiotherapy workflows, reducing manual contouring burden while maintaining high spatial accuracy and dosimetric quality. Nevertheless, high heterogeneity, variable reporting/metrics, and physician override rates show the need for standardized evaluation, prospective clinical validation, and consistent reporting to translate technical gains into practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41254426What 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.