Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging-based radiomics for detecting prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Figure 1 PRISMA flow diagram for study selection. The diagram illustrates the process of identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion of studies for the meta-analysis.

Figure 2 Coupled forest plot of eligible studies. This plot illustrates the estimated sensitivities and specificities of the studies included in the meta-analysis. The horizontal bars denote the 95% confidence intervals for each study, the diamond represents the pooled random-effects rate, and the vertical line represents the line of no effect. CI: Confidence interval.

Figure 3 Summary receiver operating characteristic curves with prediction and confidence contours. The numbers within circles correspond to the specific studies included in the bivariate model. SROC: Summary receiver operating characteristic; SENS: Sensitivity; SPEC: Specificity; AUC: Area under the curve.

Figure 4 Deeks’ funnel plot. A P value of 0.27 suggests no evidence of publication bias. ESS: Effective sample size.

Figure 5 Meta-analysis of head-to-head comparisons. The plot displays the sensitivity and specificity in the receiver operating characteristic space for head-to-head comparisons between magnetic resonance imaging-radiomics and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System. The dotted lines represent the findings of the meta-analysis. MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging; PI-RADS: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System.

Figure 6 Group bar plot of the Radiomic Quality Score by study. This plot shows the distribution of methodological quality scores (Radiomic Quality Score, maximum 36) across the 49 included.