Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41824546›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2026

The Performance of Artificial Intelligence in Classifying Molecular Markers in Adult-Type Gliomas Using Histopathological Images: Systematic Review.

Obada Almaabreh, Rukaya Al-Dafi, Aliya Tabassum, Ahmad Othman, Alaa Abd-Alrazaq

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

5 authors.

Obada AlmaabrehFaculty of Medicine, Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-1667-0488
Rukaya Al-DafiFaculty of Medicine, Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6565-9103
Aliya TabassumDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, College of Engineering, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9384-7053
Ahmad OthmanFaculty of Medicine, Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-0430-8242
Alaa Abd-AlrazaqAI Center for Precision Health, Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar, 103 Ezdan Oasis, Alwakrah, Doha, Qatar, 974 17849573.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7695-4626

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceBiomarkers, TumorBrain NeoplasmsGliomaAdultHumansIsocitrate DehydrogenaseMutationBiomarkers, TumorIsocitrate Dehydrogenase1p/19q codeletionartificial intelligencebrain tumorsgliomahistopathologyIDH mutationisocitrate dehydrogenasemolecular markerssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41824546
PMCPMC12986776

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.