ArticleNPJ precision oncology2025
Enhancing decision-making in glioblastoma surgery through an explainable human-AI collaboration: an international multicenter model development and external validation study.
Article in NPJ precision oncology, 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
29 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Surgical resection improves survival in glioblastoma, yet predicting the extent of resection (EOR) remains highly challenging. We developed and externally validated an explainable AI model to generate personalized EOR estimates in 811 glioblastoma patients undergoing microsurgical resection. EOR was categorized into gross-total (GTR), near-total (NTR), and subtotal resections (STR). An interpretable framework provided model explanations and sensitivity analyses to assess the model's strengths and limitations. To demonstrate clinical impact, we compared the performance of the human expert (gold standard) with our AI model and a combined human-AI approach. External validation confirmed generalizability (AUC 0.78, CI 0.73-0.82). Class-specific AUCs were 0.75 (0.67-0.82) for GTR, 0.59 (0.50-0.69) for NTR, and 0.69 (0.53-0.85) for STR. Key predictors included KPS and NANO scores, age, tumor volume, and unfavorable anatomical locations. A combined human-AI collaboration outperformed human experts, with higher overall accuracies (0.53 to 0.94), F1 scores (0.30 to 0.92), and Cohen's κ (0.41 to 0.84). Enhancing predictive performance through the clinician-AI collaboration, our explainable model supports preoperative planning and highlights the value of integrating machine intelligence into surgical decision-making.
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.