Uses of artificial intelligence in glioma: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glioma is the most prevalent type of primary brain tumor in adults. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in glioma is increasing and has exhibited promising results. The present study performed a systematic review of the applications of AI in glioma as regards diagnosis, grading, prediction of genotype, progression and treatment response using different databases. The aim of the present study was to demonstrate the trends (main directions) of the recent applications of AI within the field of glioma, and to highlight emerging challenges in integrating AI within clinical practice. A search in four databases (Scopus, PubMed, Wiley and Google Scholar) yielded a total of 42 articles specifically using AI in glioma and glioblastoma. The articles were retrieved and reviewed, and the data were summarized and analyzed. The majority of the articles were from the USA (n=18) followed by China (n=11). The number of articles increased by year reaching the maximum number in 2022. The majority of the articles studied glioma as opposed to glioblastoma. In terms of grading, the majority of the articles were about both low-grade glioma (LGG) and high-grade glioma (HGG) (n=23), followed by HGG/glioblastoma (n=13). Additionally, three articles were about LGG only; two articles did not specify the grade. It was found that one article had the highest sample size among the other studies, reaching 897 samples. Despite the limitations and challenges that face AI, the use of AI in glioma has increased in recent years with promising results, with a variety of applications ranging from diagnosis, grading, prognosis prediction, and reaching to treatment and post-operative care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".