Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42637963›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neuro-oncology2026

Machine learning for functional outcome prediction after vestibular schwannoma surgery: a systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis.

Shiva A Nischal, Shaan Patel, Musa China, Kush M Kale, Yi Hein Chai, Santosh Guru, William R Muirhead, Patrick Grover

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Shiva A Nischal *Department of Physiology, Anatomy & Genetics, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. shiva.nischal@dpag.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6625-5706
Shaan Patel *Department of Neurological Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2657-8874
Musa ChinaVictor Horsley Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9562-3769
Kush M KaleDepartment of Physiology, Anatomy & Genetics, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Yi Hein ChaiUniversity College London Medical School, University College London, London, UK.
Santosh GuruSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
William R MuirheadVictor Horsley Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
Patrick GroverVictor Horsley Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMachine learning (ML) models have been increasingly applied to predict postoperative facial nerve dysfunction and hearing preservation after vestibular schwannoma (VS) surgery. However, reported performance varies substantially, and the overall diagnostic accuracy and clinical reliability of these models remain uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis to characterise the current state and methodological readiness of ML-based prediction of these outcomes.

methodsPubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to February 2026. Studies evaluating ML-based prediction of facial nerve function or hearing preservation following VS surgery were included. Diagnostic performance metrics were pooled using random-effects generalised linear mixed models. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and AUC were synthesised, and SROC curves were constructed. The prespecified primary synthesis pooled the single best model per study; small-study effects were assessed with Deeks' test. Risk of bias (PROBAST) and certainty of evidence (GRADE) were assessed.

resultsTen retrospective cohort studies encompassing 1270 patients and 56 ML models met inclusion criteria. In the prespecified primary analysis pooling the single best model per study, the summary AUC was 0.91 for facial nerve dysfunction (sensitivity 0.89, specificity 0.86) and 0.92 for hearing preservation (sensitivity 0.88, specificity 0.96). Pooling all models on held-out test data gave a facial nerve AUC of 0.81; test-set data were too sparse for a stable hearing estimate, for which only training performance could be pooled (AUC 0.79). Tumour size, age, tumour location, and baseline hearing status were the most frequently identified influential predictors. Most studies were at unclear or high risk of bias (PROBAST has no intermediate "moderate" category), and certainty of evidence was moderate for facial nerve dysfunction and low for hearing preservation, the latter reflecting significant small-study effects (Deeks' p = 0.004).

conclusionML-based models demonstrate promising discrimination for predicting postoperative facial nerve and hearing outcomes after VS surgery. However, heterogeneity, limited external validation, and inconsistent reporting of calibration constrain inference regarding transportability and clinical implementation.

Indexed as

Machine LearningNeuroma, AcousticNeurosurgical ProceduresPostoperative ComplicationsHumansPredictive Learning ModelsSoft ComputingDeep learningFacial nerve palsyHearing preservationMachine learningNeural networkVestibular schwannoma

Identifiers

PMID42637963
PMCPMC13503505

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.