Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38016063›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2023

A systematic review of data sources for artificial intelligence applications in pediatric brain tumors in Europe: implications for bias and generalizability.

Alberto Eugenio Tozzi, Ileana Croci, Paul Voicu, Francesco Dotta, Giovanna Stefania Colafati, Andrea Carai, Francesco Fabozzi, Giuseppe Lacanna, Roberto Premuselli, Angela Mastronuzzi

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

10 authors.

Alberto Eugenio TozziPredictive and Preventive Medicine Research Unit, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Ileana CrociPredictive and Preventive Medicine Research Unit, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Paul VoicuDepartment of Neuroscience and Imaging, "SS Annunziata" Hospital, "G. D'Annunzio" University, Chieti, Italy.
Francesco DottaImaging Department, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Giovanna Stefania ColafatiImaging Department, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Andrea CaraiDepartment of Neurosciences, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Francesco FabozziDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, Cell and Gene Therapy, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe LacannaPredictive and Preventive Medicine Research Unit, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Roberto PremuselliDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, Cell and Gene Therapy, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Angela MastronuzziDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, Cell and Gene Therapy, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Europe works to improve cancer management through the use of artificialintelligence (AI), and there is a need to accelerate the development of AI applications for childhood cancer. However, the current strategies used for algorithm development in childhood cancer may have bias and limited generalizability. This study reviewed existing publications on AI tools for pediatric brain tumors, Europe's most common type of childhood solid tumor, to examine the data sources for developing AI tools. Methods: We performed a bibliometric analysis of the publications on AI tools for pediatric brain tumors, and we examined the type of data used, data sources, and geographic location of cohorts to evaluate the generalizability of the algorithms. Results: We screened 10503 publications, and we selected 45. A total of 34/45 publications developing AI tools focused on glial tumors, while 35/45 used MRI as a source of information to predict the classification and prognosis. The median number of patients for algorithm development was 89 for single-center studies and 120 for multicenter studies. A total of 17/45 publications used pediatric datasets from the UK. Discussion: Since the development of AI tools for pediatric brain tumors is still in its infancy, there is a need to support data exchange and collaboration between centers to increase the number of patients used for algorithm training and improve their generalizability. To this end, there is a need for increased data exchange and collaboration between centers and to explore the applicability of decentralized privacy-preserving technologies consistent with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This is particularly important in light of using the European Health Data Space and international collaborations.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencechildhood cancerCNS tumorsdata sharingpediatric oncology

Identifiers

PMID38016063
PMCPMC10646175

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.