MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417476627 · doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2025.111350

The Actual Performance of ML/AI Models in Predicting Radiation-Induced Toxicity in Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

2025· review· en· W4417476627 on OpenAlexaff
Gibson C. Ugwu, Farzad Jalali, Geoffrey Liu, Guojun Li, Johannes A. Langendijk, Behrooz Z. Alizadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiotherapy and Oncology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersRijksuniversiteit Groningen
KeywordsComparabilityReliability (semiconductor)Receiver operating characteristicPredictive modellingHead and neckSystematic reviewMeta-analysisHead and neck cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An increasing number of Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) models are being developed to predict radiation-induced toxicities (RITs) in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). But their performance and reliability remain uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the predictive accuracy and methodological quality of these models. We comprehensively searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to identify studies reporting on ML/AI models for predicting RITs in HNC patients. Eligible studies were assessed for bias risk using the PROBAST tool, and key performance metrics, including the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC), were extracted. A hierarchical multilevel meta-analysis was performed to estimate pooled AUROC values, and subgroup analyses explored the influence of study characteristics on model performance. A total of 67 studies with a total of 568 models were included, showing moderate discriminatory power of ML/AI models, with a pooled AUROC = 0.76; 95 % CI: 0.73-0.78. Nonetheless, substantial heterogeneity was observed across studies. Incorporating imaging biomarkers significantly improved model performance. Prospective and internal validation showed comparable performance; external validation shows true generalizability. The predominance of retrospective designs and variability in predictor selection may have introduced bias, affecting model reliability and generalisability. ML/AI models hold promise for predicting RITs in HNC patients, but methodological constraints limit their applicability. Standardised and transparent reporting of model development and validation processes is vital for improving comparability among studies. Future research should explore hybrid modelling methods and the integration of clinical, dosimetric, radiomic, and genomic data to boost predictive accuracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.058
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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 venueRadiotherapy and OncologySame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207