SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2026
The Performance of Artificial Intelligence in Classifying Molecular Markers in Adult-Type Gliomas Using Histopathological Images: Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. 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.
- Navigating the complexity of WHO CNS5: the evolutionary trajectory of glioma classification and the emergence of large language models.Frontiers in oncology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Adult-type gliomas are among the most prevalent and lethal primary central nervous system tumors, where prompt and accurate diagnosis is essential for maximizing survival prospects. Molecular classification, particularly the detection of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutations and 1p/19q codeletions, has become crucial for accurate diagnosis and prognosis. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising adjunct in enhancing diagnostic accuracy using histopathological images. Existing reviews mostly focused on radiology rather than histopathology, and no comprehensive systematic review has specifically evaluated AI performance exclusively from histopathological images for detecting these two molecular markers. Objective: This study aims to systematically evaluate the performance of AI models in detecting and classifying IDH mutation status and 1p/19q gene codeletion in adult-type gliomas using histopathological images. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA-DTA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Extension for Diagnostic Test Accuracy) guidelines. Seven databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar) were searched for studies published between 2015 and 2025. Eligible studies used AI models on histopathological images for molecular classification of adult-type gliomas and reported performance metrics. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using a modified QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2) tool were conducted independently by two reviewers. Extracted data were synthesized narratively. Results: A total of 2453 reports were identified, with 22 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The pooled average accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) across studies were 85.46%, 84.55%, 86.03%, and 86.53%, respectively. Hybrid models demonstrated the highest diagnostic performance (accuracy 92.80% and sensitivity 89.62%). In general, AI models that used multimodal data outperformed those that used unimodal data in terms of sensitivity (90.15% vs 84.31%) and AUC (88.93% vs 86.29%). Furthermore, models had a better overall performance in identifying IDH mutations than 1p/19q codeletions, with higher accuracy (86.13% vs 81.63%), specificity (86.61% vs 78.11%), and AUC (86.74% vs 85.15%). Unexpectedly, AI models designed for binary classification exhibited lower performance than those for multiclass classification in terms of both accuracy (91.98% vs 84.02%) and sensitivity (93.41% vs 80.18%). However, these differences should be interpreted as descriptive trends rather than statistically validated superiority, as formal between-group comparisons were not feasible. Conclusions: AI models show strong potential as complementary tools for the molecular classification of adult-type gliomas using histopathology images, particularly for IDH mutation detection. However, these findings are constrained by the limited number of studies, the focus on adult-type gliomas, lack of meta-analysis, and restriction to English-language publications. While AI offers valuable diagnostic support, it must be integrated with expert clinical judgment. Future research should prioritize larger, more diverse datasets and multimodal AI frameworks and extend to other brain tumor types for broader applicability.
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.