SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Prediction of remission in cushing's disease using artificial intelligence: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Predicting remission in Cushing’s disease (CD) following transsphenoidal surgery (TSS) is crucial for improving treatment strategies and patient outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms in forecasting remission outcomes, integrating diverse clinical, biochemical, and imaging data to enhance predictive accuracy. A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases up to December 2024, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Out of 1,571 records identified, five studies involving 1,938 patients met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of Machine learning (ML) models were 0.93 [95% CI: 0.65–0.99] and 0.78 [95% CI: 0.50–0.93], respectively, with the diagnostic score was 3.8 [95% CI: 0.86–6.74] and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 44.79 [95% CI: 2.37–846.66]. The positive diagnostic likelihood ratio (DLR) was 4.23 [95% CI: 1.39–12.86], while the negative DLR was 0.09 [95% CI: 0.01–0.67]. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.91. These results underscore the significant potential of AI algorithms in enhancing clinical decision-making and improving the prediction of remission in CD. However, methodological heterogeneity and the lack of external validation across studies call for standardized approaches to ensure broader applicability and reliability of these models in clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41642499What 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.