SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
Predictive performance of MRI and CT radiomics in predicting the response to induction chemotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the accuracy of different radiomics methods in predicting the response of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) to induction chemotherapy (IC). Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Radiomics studies utilizing CT and MRI were included in this network meta-analysis. The quality of the studies was appraised via the PROBAST, RQS, and IBSI guidelines. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of different radiomics models were analyzed. Results: Ten eligible studies involving 1550 subjects were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the radiomics models were 0.86 (95% CI: 0.78-0.91) and 0.69 (95% CI: 0.62-0.75), respectively. The AUC based on the SROC curve was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.70-0.91). The predictive performance of each model was rated using SUCRA values. The MRI-based support vector machine radiomics model had the highest specificity, and accuracy, at 80.7% and 73.2%, respectively. The MRI-based SVM radiomics combined with clinical features model had the highest sensitivity (82.0%). Among the CT methods, the deep learning (DL)-based convolutional neural network model had the highest sensitivity, and accuracy, at 51.0% and 44.9%, respectively. The PROBAST showed that 7 studies were at risk for bias. Conclusion: This study synthesized existing evidence to confirm that radiomics serves as a viable exploratory tool for predicting IC efficacy in NPC. MRI-based nonlinear models and clinical-radiomics fusion models exhibit considerable promise, whereas clinical translation necessitates three critical steps: (1) standardized protocols following IBSI/METRICS/RQS guidelines; (2) prospective multicenter validation; and (3) investigating tumor microenvironment mechanisms. These measures will facilitate the transition of radiomics from technical exploration to clinical utility. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42024509331.
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.