SynthesisCancer medicine2026
Performance of Machine Learning Models Based on Medical Imaging in Predicting Pathological Grade of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.
Synthesis in Cancer 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPredicting clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) pathological grade preoperatively is critical for clinical management. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of machine learning (ML)-based imaging models.
methodsThe Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched systematically for studies published before January 2026. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 and the Radiomics Quality Score. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likelihood ratios (PLRs/NLRs), diagnostic scores, diagnostic odds ratios (DORs), and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves were calculated. Decision curve analysis (DCA) and Fagan nomogram analysis were performed to evaluate clinical utility. Subgroup analyses were conducted to further explore sources of heterogeneity.
resultsA total of 43 studies involving 12,675 patients were included. The area under the SROC curve was 0.89, with a sensitivity of 0.79, specificity of 0.85, PLR of 5.27, NLR of 0.25, diagnostic score of 3.07, and DOR of 21.52. Fagan analysis revealed a positive prediction increased the posttest probability of high-grade disease to 70%, whereas a negative prediction decreased it to 10%. DCA demonstrated a net benefit over standard strategies across a 0.10-0.70 threshold range. Subgroup analyses revealed significantly greater sensitivity for the deep learning (DL) models than for the radiomics (0.91 vs. 0.75; p < 0.01) and automatic models compared with manual segmentation (0.86 vs. 0.76; p = 0.03). Notably, single-center independent validation (0.92) outperformed both multicenter external (0.79) and internal validation (0.72) strategies (p < 0.01). No significant performance differences were observed across imaging modalities, phase protocols, clinical variable integration, geographic regions, or sample sizes.
conclusionThis study confirms the significant potential of radiomics and DL models for the preoperative prediction of the pathological grade of ccRCC. Nevertheless, future multicenter validation is essential to address the performance gap observed in external datasets.
trial registrationProspero: CRD42023455847.
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.