SynthesisJournal of neuro-oncology2026
AI for prognosis and treatment stratification in glioblastoma neurosurgery: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlioblastoma (GBM) remains one of the most lethal adult primary brain tumors, and neurosurgical decision-making increasingly depends on integrating imaging, molecular, perioperative, and post-treatment data. Artificial intelligence (AI) methods have been proposed for several clinically relevant GBM tasks, but the literature remains heterogeneous and difficult to translate into practice.
methodsWe performed a PROSPERO-registered systematic review of AI, machine learning, and deep learning studies using MRI-derived and/or multimodal perioperative data in GBM for prognosis, risk stratification, treatment-response assessment, post-treatment classification, recurrence/progression prediction, and molecular prediction. Risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST-informed criteria.
resultsThirty studies were included. Survival-focused tasks predominated (20/30, 66.7%), with radiomics plus conventional machine learning as the most common model family (13/30, 43.3%), followed by deep learning (8/30, 26.7%) and hybrid deep learning plus radiomics approaches (4/30, 13.3%). Validation was predominantly internal, and external validation was uncommon (5/30, 16.7%).
conclusionsAI shows promise for prognosis and treatment stratification in GBM neurosurgery, but current evidence is limited by heterogeneity, incomplete external validation, and inconsistent methodological reporting. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42319645What 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.