ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024
From simple factors to artificial intelligence: evolution of prognosis prediction in childhood cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Harnessing artificial intelligence for pediatric health: Current trends and future opportunities.iScience · 2026Review
- Non-invasive MRI biomarkers for assessment of neoadjuvant chemotherapy response in osteosarcoma: Current techniques and clinical perspectives.Journal of bone oncology · 2026Review
- AI and digital health for childhood cancer care in Ghana.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Single-Gene Mutations in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Applications and Challenges in Precision Medicine.International journal of medical sciences · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Current paediatric cancer care requires innovative approaches to predict prognosis that facilitates personalised stratification, yet studies on the performance, composition and limitations of contemporary prognostic models are lacking. We aimed to compare the accuracy of traditional and advanced prognostic models. Methods: A systematic search for this systematic review and meta-analysis (CRTN42022370251) was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases on 28 June 2024. Studies on the accuracy of prognostic markers or models used in paediatric haematological malignancies, central nervous system (CNS), or non-CNS solid tumours (NCNSST) were included. Three model categories were defined using: 1-clinical parameters, 2-genomic-transcriptomic data, and 3-artificial intelligence (AI). Primary outcomes were area under the receiver operating characteristic curve with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for various overall survival intervals and event-free survival. Two independent groups performed selection and data extraction. We used data published by the authors and publicly available databases. Findings: Of 12,982 studies, 358 were included in the meta-analysis and 27 in the systematic review, with limited data on AI-approaches. Most data were reported on NCNSST at 5-year OS, where a statistically significant difference was observed between Category-1 (0.75 CI: 0.72-0.79) and Category-2 (0.85 CI: 0.82-0.88) (p < 0.001), but not between Categories-2 and -3 (p = 0.2834) (0.82 CI: 0.77-0.88). Internal validation studies showed significantly better performance compared to those using external validation, highlighting the high risk of bias (ROB) inherent in internal validation. High ROB was most commonly experienced in the outcomes and statistical analysis domains, assessed using PROBAST and QUIPS. Interpretation: It is advisable to introduce Category-2 and -3 models in a clinical setting, especially for NCNSST prognostic for aiding risk-stratification. Although AI-supported predictions in paediatric oncology are at an early stage of development, it is imperative to further explore their potential. This requires structured data collection and ethical sharing from paediatric oncology patients in sufficient quantity and quality. Funding: None.
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.