Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41584578›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025

Quality and accuracy of radiomics models in predicting KRAS status in lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xindong Luo, Ziqiang Wang, Di Lu, Yaping Wang, Wenliang Wang, Pengcheng Dong, Yunjiu Gou, Yayuan Yang

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Xindong LuoKey Laboratory of Veterinary Pharmaceutical Development, Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Affairs, Lanzhou Institute of Husbandry and Pharmaceutical Sciences of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Lanzhou, China.
Ziqiang WangThe First Clinical Medical College of Gansu University of Chinese Medicine, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.
Di LuKey Laboratory of Veterinary Pharmaceutical Development, Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Affairs, Lanzhou Institute of Husbandry and Pharmaceutical Sciences of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Lanzhou, China.
Yaping WangThe First Clinical Medical College of Gansu University of Chinese Medicine, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.
Wenliang WangThe First Clinical Medical College of Gansu University of Chinese Medicine, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.
Pengcheng DongKey Laboratory of Veterinary Pharmaceutical Development, Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Affairs, Lanzhou Institute of Husbandry and Pharmaceutical Sciences of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Lanzhou, China.
Yunjiu GouThe First Clinical Medical College of Gansu University of Chinese Medicine, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.
Yayuan YangKey Laboratory of Veterinary Pharmaceutical Development, Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Affairs, Lanzhou Institute of Husbandry and Pharmaceutical Sciences of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Lanzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: This study aimed to systematically evaluate the diagnostic performance of radiomics-based models in predicting KRAS gene mutations in lung cancer and quantitatively analyze the methodological quality and reporting standardization of related studies. Methods: Original studies evaluating radiomics models for predicting KRAS mutation status in lung cancer patients were identified through systematic searches of databases including PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library (from inception to June 2025). The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess diagnostic bias risk, the Radiomics Quality Score (RQS, comprising 16 items with a total score of 36) was employed to quantify methodological quality, and the METRICS (10 criteria, 100-point scale) was applied to evaluate reporting standardization. A single-arm meta-analysis was conducted on 20 eligible studies (total sample size: 4,953 cases) to calculate pooled sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC AUC). External validation was performed using validation cohorts from 12 studies. Results: The mean RQS score of included studies was 9.86 ± 3.7 (range: 4-15, representing 27.4% ± 10.3% of the maximum score), with a mean METRICS score of 59.95 ± 13.5%. The primary analysis revealed pooled sensitivity of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.76-0.83), specificity of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.75-0.82), and AUC of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.82-0.88). Validation cohort results were consistent: sensitivity 0.79 (95% CI: 0.73-0.84), specificity 0.77 (95% CI: 0.71-0.82), and AUC 0.85 (95% CI: 0.81-0.88). Significant heterogeneity was observed among studies, but meta-regression and subgroup analyses (based on key methodological variables such as modeling algorithms, imaging modalities, RQS scores, and validation methods) confirmed stable results across subgroups, demonstrating clinical applicability. Conclusion: Radiomics models exhibit moderate diagnostic performance in predicting KRAS mutations in lung cancer. Future efforts should strictly adhere to relevant guidelines, strengthen model validation, and standardize workflows to enhance the practical value of radiomics in precision oncology. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251148699, identifier CRD420251148699.

Indexed as

cancerdeep learningKRAS gene mutationlung cancernon-small cell lung cancerradiomics

Identifiers

PMID41584578
PMCPMC12827150

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.