SynthesisActa neurochirurgica2026
Machine learning-based models for preoperative prediction of pituitary adenoma consistency: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Acta neurochirurgica, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe consistency of pituitary adenoma (PA) significantly impacts surgical difficulty and the extent of resection. Machine learning (ML) and radiomics have emerged as quantitative tools to predict tumor firmness from MRI-derived features. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesize the diagnostic performance of ML-based models for preoperative prediction of PA consistency.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched through September 2025. Studies developing or validating ML or deep learning (DL) models for predicting PA consistency were included. Pooled estimates of area under the curve (AUC), accuracy (ACC), sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsNine studies with 1,621 patients were analyzed. Algorithms included Extra Trees (ET), Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM), k-Nearest Neighbors (kNN), Logistic Regression (LR), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), and hybrid DL architectures. The pooled AUC was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.86-0.98), ACC 0.86 (95% CI: 0.79-0.92), SEN 0.80 (95% CI: 0.71-0.87), SPE 0.85 (95% CI: 0.80-0.89), and DOR 19.27 (95% CI: 10.27-36.17). Leave-one-out analyses confirmed robustness, and Egger's tests indicated no significant publication bias.
conclusionML-based models demonstrate excellent pooled diagnostic accuracy in predicting PA consistency preoperatively, underscoring their value for individualized surgical planning. Future multicenter studies with standardized imaging and external validation are needed to optimize clinical translation.
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.