Evidence Hub

Machine Learning–Driven radiomics on 18 F-FDG PET for glioma diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ali Shahriari, Sasan Ghazanafar Ahari, Ali Mousavi, M. Sadeghi, M. Abbasi, Mahsa Hosseinpour, Asal Mir, Dorrin Zohouri Zanganeh et al.

Cancer Imaging, 2025

2,321 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) applied to radiomics has revolutionized neuro-oncological imaging, yet the diagnostic performance of ML models based specifically on ^18F-FDG PET features in glioma remains poorly characterized. To systematically evaluate and quantitatively synthesize the diagnostic accuracy of ML models trained on ^18F-FDG PET radiomics for glioma classification. We conducted a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis registered on OSF (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XJG6P). PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched up to January 2025. Studies were included if they applied ML algorithms to ^18F-FDG PET radiomic features for glioma classification and reported at least one performance metric. Data extraction included demographics, imaging protocols, feature types, ML models, and validation design. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models with pooled estimates of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, AUC, F1 score, and precision. Heterogeneity was explored via meta-regression and Galbraith plots. Twelve studies comprising 2,321 patients were included. Pooled diagnostic metrics were: accuracy 92.6% (95% CI: 91.3–93.9%), AUC 0.95 (95% CI: 0.94–0.95), sensitivity 85.4%, specificity 89.7%, F1 score 0.78, and precision 0.90. Heterogeneity was high across all domains (I² >75%). Meta-regression identified ML model type and validation strategy as partial moderators. Models using CNNs or PET/MRI integration achieved superior performance. ML 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. Reported size: 2,321 participants or records.

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