ReviewBJR artificial intelligence2025
Prognostic modeling in head and neck cancer: deep learning or handcrafted radiomics?
Review in BJR artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Explainable AI for Predicting Mortality Risk in Metastatic Cancer: Retrospective Cohort Study Using the Memorial Sloan Kettering-Metastatic Dataset.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- Predicting outcomes in head and neck cancer using CT images via transfer learning.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) presents a complex clinical challenge due to its heterogeneous nature and diverse treatment responses. This review critically appraises the performance of handcrafted radiomics (HC) and deep learning (DL) models in prognosticating outcomes in HNSCC patients treated with (chemo)-radiotherapy. The focus was on methodological rigor, performance metrics, and long-term outcome reporting. A comprehensive literature search was conducted up to May 2023, identifying 23 eligible studies that met the inclusion criteria. We analyzed methodological variability and predictive performance metrics of both models for outcomes including overall survival, loco-regional recurrence, and distant metastasi. Our findings concluded that DL models exhibited slightly superior performance metrics compared to HC models, particularly in outcome prediction. However, the highest methodological quality was noted predominantly in HC studies. Substantial variability in methodology, outcome definitions, and performance metrics was observed, highlighting the need for standardization. While DL models show potential for improved prognostic performance, the methodological robustness in HC studies underscores their reliability. This emphasizes the necessity for methodological improvements, including pre-registration of protocols and clinical utility assessments, to enhance the reliability and applicability of radiomics-based prognostic models in clinical practice.
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.