SynthesisThe Journal of international medical research2026
Diagnostic performance of machine learning-based radiomics models for predicting epidermal growth factor receptor mutation status in lung adenocarcinoma in Chinese patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The Journal of international medical research, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the diagnostic performance of machine learning-based radiomics models for predicting epidermal growth factor receptor mutation status in Chinese patients with lung adenocarcinoma.MethodsFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines and prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD420251273027), a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, VIP, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database was conducted from inception to 31 October 2025. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. A bivariate random-effects model was used to synthesize the data. Subgroup analyses were conducted for three factors: (a) imaging modality (computed tomography vs. positron emission tomography-computed tomography); (b) algorithm type (deep learning vs. conventional machine learning); and (3) validation strategy (external vs. internal).ResultsThirteen studies encompassing 6628 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity was 71% (95% confidence interval: 68-74), the pooled specificity was 81% (95% confidence interval: 78-84), and the summary area under the curve was 0.85 (95% confidence interval: 0.82-0.88). Deep learning models significantly outperformed conventional machine learning models (area under the curve: 0.871 vs. 0.798; P = 0.012). Computed tomography-based models yielded higher accuracy than positron emission tomography-computed tomography-based models (area under the curve: 0.879 vs. 0.828; P = 0.038). Models validated on independent external cohorts demonstrated superior performance compared with those relying solely on internal validation (area under the curve: 0.922 vs. 0.841; P = 0.006). Imaging modality was a significant source of heterogeneity (P < 0.05). No threshold effect or publication bias was detected.ConclusionMachine learning-based radiomics models exhibit promising diagnostic accuracy for the noninvasive prediction of epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in Chinese patients with lung adenocarcinoma. Computed tomography-based deep learning models subjected to independent external validation represent the current optimal approach. However, the retrospective nature and substantial heterogeneity of the included studies necessitate large-scale, prospective, multicenter trials with standardized workflows before clinical translation.
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.