Evidence Hub

Artificial Intelligence for Diagnosis, Risk Stratification, and Prognosis of Neuroblastoma - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Serbena DR, Cieslack ILF, Ratis RC, Chaves DVP, de Oliveira Filho SS, Neves H, Dos Santos FS, Cassar DR et al.

Current oncology reports, 2026

Abstract

Purpose: To synthesizes evidence on artificial intelligence (AI) performance in neuroblastoma (NB) diagnosis, risk stratification, prognosis, and genomic characterization.

Materials and methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42024539475) across five databases. Meta-analyses used random-effects models with logit-transformed Area Under the Curve (AUCs) and cluster-robust standard errors. AI models were classified as Machine Learning Models (MLM) or Hybrid Nomograms (HN) based on their construction methodology.

Results: Of 3,742 articles identified, 53 were included. MLMs demonstrated higher point estimates than radiologists in differential diagnosis (AUC: 0.87 vs. 0.83), though this difference was not statistically significant and carried substantial uncertainty. HNs achieved stronger performance in risk stratification (AUC: 0.87). AI-derived nomograms (AUC: 0.9) and gene signatures (AUC: 0.8) outperformed conventional prognostic markers descriptively. Chemotherapy response prediction remained below clinical utility thresholds across all model types. Only 33.9% of models reported calibration and 24.5% underwent external validation.

Conclusions: AI demonstrates proof-of-concept across multiple NB clinical domains. However, clinical adoption remains premature given persistent gaps in external validation, calibration, dataset size, and pediatric-specific model development. Future studies should test these models…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free