ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Systematic review and meta-analysis of AI in lung cancer metastasis imaging for diagnosis and prognosis.
Article in NPJ digital 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Lung cancer (LC) remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality, and distant metastases (DMs) are common. Imaging-based AI research has largely focused on primary tumors, with metastatic lesions insufficiently investigated. This study provides the first metastasis-focused quantitative synthesis of AI performance for imaging-based evaluation of DMs in LC across classification and outcome-prediction tasks, with 59 of 64 eligible reports in the meta-analysis. Task-specific meta-analysis showed pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC (best-performing model) of 0.88, 0.87, and 0.91 for molecular-level prediction; 0.87, 0.90, and 0.93 for metastasis differentiation; 0.89, 0.94, and 0.90 for tumor type classification; and 0.82, 0.86, and 0.89 for outcome prediction, respectively. Heterogeneity between studies was substantial (I² > 90% for key analyses). Subgroup analyses showed favorable performance across study settings. The findings support AI for imaging-based evaluation of DMs in LC, highlighting the need for robust and interpretable models for translation.
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.