SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Radiomics and artificial intelligence-based prediction of tumor response in digestive system neoplasm: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Radiomics and artificial intelligence (AI) are progressively gaining recognition for predicting tumor response, recurrence, and prognosis in gastrointestinal tumors. The current review singled out the diagnostic and prognostic potential of AI and radiomics in the whole GI tract. Methods: Out of 120 ongoing studies from the year 2016 to 2025, the following applications were covered: endoscopy, colonoscopy, capsule endoscopy, intraoperative guidance, CT/MRI radiomics, and molecular/histopathology AI models. The performance across studies was assessed by meta-analysis using random-effects modeling that incorporated inverse variance methods. Results from the analysis of heterogeneity ( Results: The use of AI in detection and diagnosis assisted with the endoscopy of the upper gastrointestinal tract (OR = 16.12, 95% CI: 7.72-33.65), colonoscopies for colorectal polyps (OR = 12.0, 95% CI: 10.26-14.03), and capsule endoscopy (OR = 10.16, 95% CI: 8.32-12.4) and was proven to be very effective. Intraoperative guidance also was proven to be an effective surgical decision-making tool (OR = 8.12, 95% CI: 7.12-9.26), whereas an AI-based strategy for patient risk assessment predicted the occurrence of lymph node metastasis, molecular tumor types, and patient survival (OR = 9.62, 95% CI: 7.93-11.66). Radiomic models forecasted tumor responses and relapses in rectal/colorectal (OR = 10.48, 95% CI: 9.66-11.36), gastric/esophagogastric/esophageal cancers (OR = 10.81, 95% CI: 9.89-11.82), molecular/histopathology datasets (OR = 11.62, 95% CI: 10.42-12.95), and CT/MRI recurrence/prognosis models (OR = 10.59, 95% CI: 9.52-11.79). The RQS assessment indicated moderate-to-high methodological quality, and the PROBAST evaluation revealed a low-to-moderate risk of bias. Conclusion: Validation through prospective multicenter studies and reporting that has been standardized is the key to clinical reliability enhancement and backed-up precision oncology implementation.
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.