MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410245613 · doi:10.1016/j.ibmed.2025.100250

Implementation of artificial intelligence in detection, classification, and prognostication of osteosarcoma utilizing different assessment techniques: a systematic review

2025· review· en· W4410245613 on OpenAlexaff
Zhina Mohamadi, Paniz Partovifar, Helia Ahmadzadeh, Ali Ghanbari, Sina Feyzipour, Fatemeh Atefat, Nazanin Jahanpeyma, Fatemeh Haghighi asl, Armin ZarinKhat, Narges Sharbatdaran, Narges Hosseinzadeh taher, Fatemeh Aghajafari

Bibliographic record

VenueIntelligence-Based Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteosarcomaComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Osteosarcoma (OS) is the most common primary bone cancer particularly in individuals aged 0-19, classified into different stages. Early diagnosis improves survival, Determination of prognosis and treatment based on it, and enables limb-sparing surgery. AI, in particular machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), helps analyze large datasets, identify biomarkers, predict prognosis, and personalize treatments by assessing the aforementioned features. AI has the potential to improve evaluation procedures, such as imaging and pathology approaches used in OS diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. This study systematically examines AI’s synergistic role with conventional evaluating techniques in OS treatment, improving prognostication, predicting therapy responses, and developing personalized treatment strategies. Method We performed an extensive search via several databases until April 23, 2024. Machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL) as the main branches of AI are often utilized in the medical sciences were searched for detection classification, and prognostication of osteosarcoma. RAYYAN.ai was used to screen the articles through the titles and abstracts. We conducted data extraction on the included articles and employed Cochrane and QUIPS tools to assess potential bias in the included non-prognosis and prognosis studies to evaluate their quality, respectively. Results There were 8129 articles obtained from the four databases following a thorough search. Of them 8050 ones were excluded and the remaining 78 articles published from 2013 to 2024 were reviewed. A large number of the articles indicated moderate and low risk of bias as a result of the risk of bias assessment. The majority of the articles that were reviewed (n = 48) concerned the clinical aspects of osteosarcoma; of these, 23 and 25 studies assessed diagnosis and prognoses, respectively. Furthermore, 20 articles examined image analysis specifically, 4 examined image segmentation methods, and 16 introduced classifiers to identify osteosarcoma from other diseases. Conclusion AI improves biomarker identification, diagnostics, and prognosis of osteosarcoma through medical imaging and data integration. Models like ResNet50 and CNN show high performance but face real-world limitations due to data heterogeneity and overfitting. This study explores AI’s role in osteosarcoma diagnosis, emphasizing interdisciplinary collaboration, external validation, and real-world application challenges.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.383 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntelligence-Based MedicineSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207