Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40905766›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2025

Diagnostic Performance of Computed Tomography-Based Artificial Intelligence for Early Recurrence of Cholangiocarcinoma: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Jie Chen, Jianxin Xi, Tianyu Chen, Lulu Yang, Kaijia Liu, Xiaobo Ding

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Jie ChenDepartment of Radiology, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Jilin, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5774-2818
Jianxin XiGeneral Surgery Center, Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0661-660X
Tianyu ChenDepartment of Urology, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4114-3459
Lulu YangDepartment of Radiology, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Jilin, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-9231-4199
Kaijia LiuDepartment of Radiology, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Jilin, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-7771-8271
Xiaobo DingDepartment of Radiology, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Jilin, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8902-7207

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite artificial intelligence (AI) models demonstrating high predictive accuracy for early cholangiocarcinoma recurrence, their clinical application faces challenges, such as reproducibility, generalizability, hidden biases, and uncertain performance across diverse datasets and populations, raising concerns about their practical applicability.

objectiveThis meta-analysis aims to systematically assess the diagnostic performance of AI models using computed tomography (CT) imaging to predict early recurrence of cholangiocarcinoma.

methodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for studies published up to May 2025. Studies were selected based on the Participants, Index test, Target condition, Reference standard, Outcomes, and Setting (PITROS) framework. Participants included patients diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma (including intrahepatic and extrahepatic locations). The index test was AI techniques applied to CT imaging for early recurrence prediction (defined as within 1 year), while the target condition was early recurrence of cholangiocarcinoma (positive group: recurrence; negative group: no recurrence). The reference standard was pathological diagnosis or imaging follow-up confirming recurrence. Outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), assessed in both internal and external validation cohorts. The setting comprised retrospective or prospective studies using hospital datasets. Methodological quality was assessed using an optimized version of the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, and AUC were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model.

resultsA total of 9 studies with 30 datasets involving 1537 patients were included. In internal validation cohorts, CT-based AI models showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.87 (95% CI 0.81-0.92), specificity of 0.85 (95% CI 0.79-0.89), DOR of 37.71 (95% CI 18.35-77.51), and AUC of 0.93 (95% CI 0.90-0.94). In external validation cohorts, pooled sensitivity was 0.87 (95% CI 0.81-0.91), specificity was 0.82 (95% CI 0.77-0.86), DOR was 30.81 (95% CI 18.79-50.52), and AUC was 0.85 (95% CI 0.82-0.88). The AUC was significantly lower in external validation cohorts compared to internal validation cohorts (P<.001).

conclusionsOur results show that CT-based AI models predict early cholangiocarcinoma recurrence with high performance in internal validation sets and moderate performance in external validation sets. However, the high heterogeneity observed may impact the robustness of these results. Future research should focus on prospective studies and establishing standardized gold standards to further validate the clinical applicability and generalizability of AI models.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBile Duct NeoplasmsCholangiocarcinomaNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalTomography, X-Ray ComputedHumansartificial intelligencecholangiocarcinomacomputed tomographyearly recurrencemeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID40905766
PMCPMC12491900

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.