Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40433621›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2025

Performance of deep learning models for automatic histopathological grading of meningiomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Parsia Noori Mirtaheri, Matin Akhbari, Farnaz Najafi, Hoda Mehrabi, Ali Babapour, Zahra Rahimian, Amirhossein Rigi, Saeid Rahbarbaghbani, Hesam Mobaraki, Sanaz Masoumi and 9 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Machine Learning-Driven radiomics on 18 F-FDG PET for glioma diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

19 authors.

Parsia Noori Mirtaheri *School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Matin Akhbari *Department of Neurosurgery, Ege University Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Türkiye.
Farnaz Najafi *School of Medicine, Islamic Azad University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Hoda MehrabiStudent Research Committee, School of Medicine, Arak University of Medical Sciences, Arak, Iran.
Ali BabapourDepartment of Computer Science, Tabari Institute of Higher Education, Tehran, Iran.
Zahra RahimianSchool of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Amirhossein RigiDepartment of Radiology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Saeid RahbarbaghbaniFaculty of Medicine, Istanbul Yeni Yuzyil University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Hesam MobarakiFaculty of Medicine, Istanbul Yeni Yuzyil University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Sanaz MasoumiYas Hospital Complex, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Danial NouriSchool of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Seyedeh-Tarlan MirzohrehFaculty of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Seyyed Kiarash Sadat RafieiStudent Research Committee, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mahsa Asadi AnarCollege of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Zahra GolkarStudent Research Committee, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Yasaman Asadollah SalmanpourStudent Research Committee, Islamic Azad University Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran.
Ali Vesali MahmoudDepartment of Physiology, Buali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran.
Mohammad Sadra Gholami ChahkandStudent Research Committee, School of Medicine, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran.
Maryam KhodaeiDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Accurate preoperative grading of meningiomas is crucial for selecting the most suitable treatment strategies and predicting patient outcomes. Traditional MRI-based assessments are often insufficient to distinguish between low- and high-grade meningiomas reliably. Deep learning (DL) models have emerged as promising tools for automated histopathological grading using imaging data. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively evaluate the diagnostic performance of deep learning (DL) models for meningioma grading. Methods: This study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-DTA guidelines and was prospectively registered on the Open Science Framework. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed up to March 2025. Studies using DL models to classify meningiomas based on imaging data were included. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). A bivariate random-effects model was used to fit the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and publication bias was evaluated using Egger's test. Results: Twenty-seven studies involving 13,130 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity was 92.31% (95% CI: 92.1-92.52%), specificity 95.3% (95% CI: 95.11-95.48%), and accuracy 97.97% (95% CI: 97.35-97.98%), with an AUC of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96-0.98). The bivariate SROC curve demonstrated excellent diagnostic performance, characterized by a relatively narrow 95% confidence interval despite moderate to high heterogeneity (I Conclusion: DL models demonstrate high diagnostic accuracy for automatic meningioma grading and could serve as valuable clinical decision-support tools. Systematic review registration: DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/RXEBM.

Indexed as

AIdeep learninghistopathological gradingmeningiomameta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID40433621
PMCPMC12108801

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.