ReviewCancers2026
Performance of Machine Learning Models for Predicting Occult Nodal Metastasis in Oral Cavity Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Accuracy Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesOccult cervical nodal metastasis drives prognosis in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC), yet current tools for risk stratification in clinically node-negative (cN0) patients are imperfect. Machine learning (ML) models have been proposed to refine selection for elective neck dissection (END), but their diagnostic performance and generalizability are unclear.
methodsWe performed a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis of ML models predicting occult nodal metastasis in adults with cN0 OCSCC. Eligible studies evaluated an ML-based model, used pathologic nodal status as the reference standard, and reported or allowed reconstruction of sensitivity and specificity. Internal and external validation were distinguished; quantitative synthesis was restricted to non-overlapping external validation cohorts. Diagnostic performance was synthesized with a bivariate random-effects hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model, with prespecified sensitivity analyses restricting to lower-risk patient-selection cohorts, models using only preoperative predictors, and non-outlying cohorts.
resultsThirteen retrospective studies (4730 patients) met inclusion; pooled occult nodal metastasis prevalence was 23.6% (crude 20.4%). Eight studies reported only internal validation; five provided six external validation cohorts. Across these external cohorts, pooled sensitivity was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.64-0.89) and specificity 0.84 (95% CI, 0.70-0.93). Negative predictive values were consistently high (0.94-0.98), whereas positive predictive values were modest (0.39-0.85). Sensitivity analyses yielded similar summary estimates with wider confidence intervals.
conclusionsExternally validated ML models for predicting occult nodal metastasis in cN0 OCSCC show promise but remain insufficiently validated to guide END in routine practice.
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.