SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2025
Radiomics-Based Machine Learning for the Detection of Myometrial Invasion in Endometrial Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 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.
- Integrating artificial intelligence and multi-omics data for precision oncology in endometrial cancer: a narrative review.Functional & integrative genomics · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreoperative endometrial cancer (EC) diagnosis often depends on radiologists' expertise, which introduces subjectivity. Recent studies have explored radiomics-based machine learning (ML) models for detecting myometrial invasion (MI), but a comprehensive evaluation of their diagnostic performance is lacking. Therefore, our study systematically assessed the diagnostic performance of radiomics-based ML approaches for identifying MI in EC, thereby providing evidence to guide the development or improvement of noninvasive diagnostic tools.
objectiveThis study aims to systematically assess the diagnostic performance of radiomics-based ML approaches for identifying MI in EC and compare the diagnostic efficacy of conventional ML (CML) and deep learning (DL) models based on differences in data processing methods via subgroup analyses, thereby providing evidence to guide the development or improvement of noninvasive diagnostic tools.
methodsPubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science were searched through November 26, 2024, for studies evaluating radiomics-based ML for detecting MI in patients with EC. Study quality was appraised using the radiomics quality score. Pooled diagnostic metrics were estimated using a bivariate random-effects model. Subgroup analyses compared CML and DL models.
resultsWe included 19 studies comprising 4373 patients with EC. Of these 19 studies, 18 (95%) used magnetic resonance imaging-based radiomics, and 1 (5%) used ultrasound imaging. The pooled estimates from the meta-analysis demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.79 (95% CI 0.73-0.83), a specificity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.79-0.86), a positive likelihood ratio (PLR) of 4.5 (95% CI 3.5-5.8), a negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of 0.26 (95% CI 0.20-0.34), a diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 17 (95% CI 11-28), and an area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUSROC) of 0.89 (95% CI 0.00-1.00). Subgroup analyses revealed that the DL models achieved a sensitivity of 0.81 (95% CI 0.71-0.88) and a specificity of 0.86 (95% CI 0.76-0.92). The PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUSROC were 5.6 (95% CI 3.2-9.8), 0.22 (95% CI 0.14-0.36), 25 (95% CI 10-64), and 0.89 (95% CI 0.00-1.00), respectively. By contrast, the CML models exhibited a sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI 0.69-0.83) and a specificity of 0.81 (95% CI 0.77-0.85). The PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUSROC were 4.1 (95% CI 3.2-5.4), 0.28 (95% CI 0.20-0.39), 15 (95% CI 9-25), and 0.86 (95% CI 0.00-1.00), respectively.
conclusionsRadiomics-based ML shows strong potential for noninvasive prediction of MI in EC, with DL outperforming CML. However, current evidence is limited and relies mainly on internal validation. Larger-scale, multicenter studies are needed to establish robust artificial intelligence-based diagnostic tools.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD420250625797; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420250625797.
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.