ArticleTranslational cancer research2026
Accuracy of machine learning in detecting lymph node metastasis of esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Translational cancer research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Currently, the detection of early lymph node metastasis in esophageal cancer during preoperative assessments is still challenging. Machine learning has been used in the detection of early lymph node metastasis in esophageal cancer. However, its detection accuracy remains controversial. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to explore the accuracy of machine learning in the detection of lymph node metastasis in esophageal cancer. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched for related studies published before May 7, 2026. Studies were excluded based on the following criteria: meta-analyses, reviews, guidelines, and expert opinions; studies solely conducting risk factor analysis without constructing complete machine learning models; studies failing to report essential model accuracy evaluation metrics; and studies merely validating mature scales without machine learning model development. The PROBAST tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Subgroup analyses were performed according to various datasets and modeling variables, including explainable clinical features, genomics, radiomics, and the combination of radiomics with clinical features. Results: In total, 49 original studies were included, of which 20 used radiomics, including 19,755 medical records. The meta-analysis revealed that in the validation dataset, the C-index of machine learning was 0.79 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.76-0.83, I Conclusions: Given clinical applicability, cost, and detection accuracy, machine learning models based on both radiomics and clinical features, with a higher C-index, appear to be a more favorable technique for detecting the early lymph node metastasis status of esophageal cancer compared with machine learning models based on clinical features alone. However, given its inherent heterogeneity, the results should be interpreted with caution and need to be validated in future research.
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.