Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42064005›Full record

ReviewBJR artificial intelligence2025

Prognostic modeling in head and neck cancer: deep learning or handcrafted radiomics?

Varsha Gouthamchand, Louise A F Fonseca, Frank J P Hoebers, Rianne Fijten, Andre Dekker, Leonard Wee, Hannah Mary Thomas T

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Varsha GouthamchandDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, 6229ER, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4756-2866
Louise A F FonsecaAcademic Center for General Practice, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, 3000, Belgium.
Frank J P HoebersDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, 6229ER, The Netherlands.
Rianne FijtenDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, 6229ER, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1964-6317
Andre DekkerDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, 6229ER, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0422-7996
Leonard WeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, 6229ER, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1612-9055
Hannah Mary Thomas TQuantitative Imaging Research and Artificial Intelligence Lab, Department of Radiation Oncology, Unit II, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, 632004, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1454-512X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

deep learninghead and neck cancerprognosisquality checklistradiomicsreview

Identifiers

PMID42064005
PMCPMC13045703

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.