ReviewInsights into imaging2024
The prognostic value of radiogenomics using CT in patients with lung cancer: a systematic review.
Review in Insights into imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiomics in Lung Cancer Imaging: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence.Journal of imaging · 2026Review
- Lightweight hybrid foundation model for lung cancer prognosis based on low-dose chest X-ray images.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Article
- Application of dual-energy computed tomography combined with radiomics in the clinical diagnosis of lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Perioperative Strategies in Resectable Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with EGFR Mutations and ALK Rearrangement.Cancers · 2025Review
- Integrating Radiogenomics and Machine Learning in Musculoskeletal Oncology Care.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of combining radiomic and genomic models in predicting the long-term prognosis of patients with lung cancer and to contribute to the further exploration of radiomics. This study retrieved comprehensive literature from multiple databases, including radiomics and genomics, to study the prognosis of lung cancer. The model construction consisted of the radiomic and genomic methods. A comprehensive bias assessment was conducted, including risk assessment and model performance indicators. Ten studies between 2016 and 2023 were analyzed. Studies were mostly retrospective. Patient cohorts varied in size and characteristics, with the number of patients ranging from 79 to 315. The construction of the model involves various radiomic and genotic datasets, and most models show promising prediction performance with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.64 to 0.94 and the concordance index (C-index) values from 0.28 to 0.80. The combination model typically outperforms the single method model, indicating higher prediction accuracy and the highest AUC was 0.99. Combining radiomics and genomics in the prognostic model of lung cancer may improve the predictive performance. However, further research on standardized data and larger cohorts is needed to validate and integrate these findings into clinical practice. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The combination of radiomics and genomics in the prognostic model of lung cancer improved prediction accuracy in most included studies. KEY POINTS: The combination of radiomics and genomics can improve model performance in most studies. The results of establishing prognosis models by different methods are discussed. The combination of radiomics and genomics may be helpful to provide better treatment for patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.