Machine Learning Models for Predicting Pseudoprogression in Glioblastoma: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-Analysis

Clicks: 2
ID: 317114
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #31 of 42 articles by views in Neuro-Oncology Practice

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Background Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are increasingly being used in medical practice, particularly in neuroradiology. Glioblastoma, a highly aggressive brain tumor, poses significant diagnostic challenges, especially in differentiating actual tumor progression (TP) from pseudoprogression (PsP) using conventional MRI. ML and AI techniques offer a promising approach, but their diagnostic accuracy remains debated. Methods A systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis were performed to assess the diagnostic efficacy of ML algorithms applied in MRI of glioblastoma patients to differentiate between TP and PsP. We evaluated classical machine learning and deep learning models using diffusion-weighted, perfusion-weighted, and structural MRI inputs to differentiate pseudoprogression from true progression in glioblastoma. PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated using a random-effects model. 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). 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 glioblastoma patients, offering a promising tool to enhance radiological assessment and support clinical decision-making. However, further standardization across algorithms and datasets is needed to facilitate their integration into routine clinical practice.
Reference Key
openalex_W7164556244 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Martin Kotochinsky, Yasmin Picanço Silva, Abhishek Goyal, Paweł Łajczak, Wagner Rios-García, Ricardo Suruagy-Motta, Iago Nathan Simon Petry, Thales Pardini Fagundes, Raphael Bertani
Journal Neuro-Oncology Practice
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/nop/npag055
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/nop/npag055
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.