ReviewClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2026
Radiomic and dosiomic machine learning models for predicting radiation-induced oral mucositis in head and neck cancer: a systematic review.
Review in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo critically evaluate machine learning (ML) models developed for predicting radiation-induced oral mucositis (OM) in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients, emphasizing the contribution of advanced imaging biomarkers such as radiomic and dosiomic features. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis systematic review followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251075245). The PICOS framework guided the review question and inclusion criteria. Studies developing or validating ML models for OM prediction using radiomic and/or dosiomic data were included. Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus) were searched up to July 2025. The risk of bias was assessed using the PROBAST tool, and models were compared based on predictor types.
resultsSeven studies involving 2,311 patients were included. All models incorporated dosimetric predictors, while some used additional radiomic (n = 3), dosiomic (n = 2), contouromic (n = 1), or oral health indices (n = 1). Reported discrimination (AUC) ranged from 0.70 to 0.96, but external validations showed reduced performance (AUC ~ 0.65). High risk of bias was mainly observed in analysis domains due to limited sample sizes and incomplete calibration.
conclusionML models for OM prediction remain exploratory and are not yet ready for routine clinical implementation due to poor generalizability and calibration issues.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42258140What 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.