Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36313696›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022

Artificial intelligence with magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Lu-Lu Jia, Qing-Yong Zheng, Jin-Hui Tian, Di-Liang He, Jian-Xin Zhao, Lian-Ping Zhao, Gang Huang

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. GPT-Driven Radiology Report Generation with Fine-Tuned Llama 3.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
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

7 authors.

Lu-Lu JiaThe First Clinical Medical College of Gansu University of Chinese Medicine, Lanzhou, China.
Qing-Yong ZhengEvidence-Based Nursing Center, School of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Jin-Hui TianEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Di-Liang HeThe First Clinical Medical College of Gansu University of Chinese Medicine, Lanzhou, China.
Jian-Xin ZhaoThe First Clinical Medical College of Gansu University of Chinese Medicine, Lanzhou, China.
Lian-Ping ZhaoDepartment of Radiology, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.
Gang HuangDepartment of Radiology, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) models with magnetic resonance imaging(MRI) in predicting pathological complete response(pCR) to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in patients with rectal cancer. Furthermore, assessed the methodological quality of the models. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of science for studies published before 21 June 2022, without any language restrictions. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) and Radiomics Quality Score (RQS) tools were used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. We calculated pooled sensitivity and specificity using random-effects models, I Results: We selected 21 papers for inclusion in the meta-analysis from 1562 retrieved publications, with a total of 1873 people in the validation groups. The meta-analysis showed that AI models based on MRI predicted pCR to nCRT in patients with rectal cancer: a pooled area under the curve (AUC) 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88-0.93), sensitivity of 0.82(95% CI,0.71-0.90), pooled specificity 0.86(95% CI,0.80-0.91). In the subgroup analysis, the pooled AUC of the deep learning(DL) model was 0.97, the pooled AUC of the radiomics model was 0.85; the pooled AUC of the combined model with clinical factors was 0.92, and the pooled AUC of the radiomics model alone was 0.87. The mean RQS score of the included studies was 10.95, accounting for 30.4% of the total score. Conclusions: Radiomics is a promising noninvasive method with high value in predicting pathological response to nCRT in patients with rectal cancer. DL models have higher predictive accuracy than radiomics models, and combined models incorporating clinical factors have higher diagnostic accuracy than radiomics models alone. In the future, prospective, large-scale, multicenter investigations using radiomics approaches will strengthen the diagnostic power of pCR. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42021285630.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencemagnetic resonance imagingpathological responseradiomicsrectal neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID36313696
PMCPMC9597310

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.