SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2025
Performance of deep learning models for automatic histopathological grading of meningiomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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 · 2025Pooled it
- How AI Can Advance Mathematical Biology: Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Directions.Bulletin of mathematical biology · 2026Review
- Advanced Deep Learning Architectures in MRI-Based Brain Tumor Classification: A Systematic Review Focused on Meningiomas.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Review
- Multidisciplinary management of meningiomas in the era of precision oncology.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Comparative performance of machine learning and deep learning models for heart disease prediction in a small clinical dataset.American journal of cardiovascular disease · 2026Article
- AI-Powered Histology for Molecular Profiling in Brain Tumors: Toward Smart Diagnostics from Tissue.Cancers · 2025Review
- Applications of deep learning in intracranial aneurysm imaging: A scoping review of detection, risk prediction, and emerging prognostic models.Current journal of neurology · 2025Review
- Context-specific targeting of focal adhesion kinase in brain tumors: lessons from glioblastoma and neurofibromatosis type 2-mutant meningioma.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.