SynthesisJournal of neurology2025
Diagnostic performance of PET-based artificial intelligence for differentiating Parkinson's disease from normal controls or atypical parkinsonism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of PET-based artificial intelligence (AI) for differentiating Parkinson's disease (PD) from normal controls (NC) or atypical parkinsonism (AP).
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for studies published up to July 2, 2025. Studies were included if they investigated PET-based AI for differentiating PD from NC or AP. Quality assessments were performed using the PROBAST-AI tool, and a bivariate random-effects model was implemented to calculate pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC).
resultsAmong 29 included studies, PET-based AI demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI 0.89-0.96) and specificity of 0.92 (95% CI 0.86-0.95) for PD vs. NC, with an AUC of 0.97 (95% CI 0.95-0.98). For PD vs. AP, pooled sensitivity was 0.92 (95% CI 0.88-0.95), specificity was 0.86 (95% CI 0.78-0.91), and AUC was 0.95 (95% CI 0.93-0.97). Subgroup analyses revealed dopaminergic tracers ([
conclusionsPET-based AI models exhibit high diagnostic performance in differentiating PD from NC or AP, indicating significant potential for clinical application. However, limitations such as study heterogeneity and small sample sizes highlight the need for larger, multi-center trials to validate these findings and improve the clinical utility of AI models in practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41273399What 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.