CNSC-67. MACHINE LEARNING MODELS FOR PREDICTING PSEUDOPROGRESSION IN GLIOBLASTOMA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND DIAGNOSTIC META-ANALYSIS

Abstract INTRODUCTION Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are increasingly being used in medical practice, particularly in neuroradiology. Glioblastoma (GBM), a highly aggressive brain tumor, poses significant diagnostic challenges, especially in differentiating true tumor progression (TP) from pseudoprogression (PsP) using conventional MRI. ML and AI techniques offer a promising approach, but their diagnostic accuracy remains debated. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the overall diagnostic accuracy of ML algorithms applied to various imaging modalities in differentiating TP from PsP in patients with GBM. METHODS A systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis was performed to assess the diagnostic efficacy of ML algorithms applied in MRI of GBM patients to differentiate between TP and PsP. PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched up. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity and publication bias were also assessed. RESULTS Eleven studies involving a total of 676 patients were included. ML models demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.899 (95% CI: 0.843–0.936; I² = 16.3%) and a specificity of 0.766 (95% CI: 0.647–0.854; I² = 38.8%). The diagnostic odds ratio was 27.059 (95% CI: 11.094–65.999; I² =61.9%) and the overall accuracy was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.788–0.897; I² = 66%). The AUC was estimated at 0.88 (95% CI: 0.727–0.896), indicating strong diagnostic performance. Deek’s funnel plot showed no significant publication bias (p = 0.283). CONCLUSION ML-based models demonstrate high diagnostic accuracy in distinguishing TP from PsP in GBM patients, offering a promising tool to enhance radiological assessment and support clinical decision-making. However, further standardization across algorithms and datasets are needed to facilitate their integration into routine clinical practice.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Neuro-Oncology
Published
2025-11-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noaf201.0274
Primary Topic
Glioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

CNSC-67. MACHINE LEARNING MODELS FOR PREDICTING PSEUDOPROGRESSION IN GLIOBLASTOMA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND DIAGNOSTIC META-ANALYSIS

João Santos Baptista, Wagner Rios-García, Paweł Łajczak, Abhishek Goyal et al.
Neuro-Oncology
Glioma Diagnosis and Treatment
article

CNSC-67. MACHINE LEARNING MODELS FOR PREDICTING PSEUDOPROGRESSION IN GLIOBLASTOMA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND DIAGNOSTIC META-ANALYSIS

João Santos Baptista, Wagner Rios-García, Paweł Łajczak, Abhishek Goyal, Martin Kotochinsky, R Motta, Yasmin Silva, Raphael Bertani, Iago Nathan Simon Petry
article en

Abstract

Abstract INTRODUCTION Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are increasingly being used in medical practice, particularly in neuroradiology. Glioblastoma (GBM), a highly aggressive brain tumor, poses significant diagnostic challenges, especially in differentiating true tumor progression (TP) from pseudoprogression (PsP) using conventional MRI. ML and AI techniques offer a promising approach, but their diagnostic accuracy remains debated. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the overall diagnostic accuracy of ML algorithms applied to various imaging modalities in differentiating TP from PsP in patients with GBM. METHODS A systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis was performed to assess the diagnostic efficacy of ML algorithms applied in MRI of GBM patients to differentiate between TP and PsP. PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched up. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity and publication bias were also assessed. RESULTS Eleven studies involving a total of 676 patients were included. ML models demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.899 (95% CI: 0.843–0.936; I² = 16.3%) and a specificity of 0.766 (95% CI: 0.647–0.854; I² = 38.8%). The diagnostic odds ratio was 27.059 (95% CI: 11.094–65.999; I² =61.9%) and the overall accuracy was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.788–0.897; I² = 66%). The AUC was estimated at 0.88 (95% CI: 0.727–0.896), indicating strong diagnostic performance. Deek’s funnel plot showed no significant publication bias (p = 0.283). CONCLUSION ML-based models demonstrate high diagnostic accuracy in distinguishing TP from PsP in GBM patients, offering a promising tool to enhance radiological assessment and support clinical decision-making. However, further standardization across algorithms and datasets are needed to facilitate their integration into routine clinical practice.

Neuro-OncologyVol. 27(Supplement_5)
Universidade Estadual de Maringá (BR), Universidad Nacional de Cuyo (AR), Medical University of Silesia (PL), Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein (BR), Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina (BR), Náttúrufræðistofnun (IS), Saint Aloysius Gonzaga National University (PE), Self Regional Healthcare (US), Centro Universitário Cesmac (BR), John F. Kennedy Medical Center (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 50%
Glioma Diagnosis and Treatment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.