A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

MRI-derived deep learning models for predicting 1p/19q codeletion status in glioma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Purpose: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-derived deep learning (DL) models in predicting 1p/19q codeletion status in glioma patients.

Methods: The literature search was performed in four databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus. We included the studies that evaluated the performance of end-to-end DL models in predicting the status of glioma 1p/19q codeletion. The quality of the included studies was assessed by the Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2 (QUADAS-2) METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS). We calculated diagnostic pooled estimates and heterogeneity was evaluated using I. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted to explore sources of heterogeneity. Publication bias was evaluated by Deeks' funnel plots.

Results: Twenty studies were included in the systematic review. Only two studies had a low quality. A meta-analysis of the ten studies demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.63-0.87), a specificity of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.74-0.92), a positive diagnostic likelihood ratio (DLR) of 5.34 (95% CI: 2.88-9.89), a negative DLR of 0.26 (95% CI: 0.16-0.45), a diagnostic odds ratio of 20.24 (95% CI: 8.19-50.02), and an area under the curve of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86-0.91). The subgroup analysis identified a significant difference between groups depending on the segmentation method used.

Conclusion: DL models can predict glioma 1p/19q codeletion status with high accuracy and may enhance non-invasive tumor characterization and aid in the selection of optimal therapeutic strategies.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00234-025-03631-zDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

1p/19q codeletion
16
models predicting
12
codeletion status
12
status glioma
12
systematic review
12
mri-derived deep
8
deep learning
8
learning models
8
predicting 1p/19q
8
review meta-analysis
8

Similar Publications