Search PubMedSearch

subject

Diagnostic test accuracy

Diagnostic test accuracy: explore 2 source-linked works published from 2026 to 2026, with original documents and citations.

This collection is a preview while coverage and quality are evaluated.

Search within this collection

Coverage and selection

Includes records with this source-supplied label or an explicit phrase match in their metadata. Matches indicate a mention, not proof that a paper uses a method or tests a material. Source versions are consolidated by DOI.

Sources: pubmed. Collection updated 2026-09-15. Counts describe this index, not the complete source archives.

Diagnostic accuracy of nuclear STAT6 immunohistochemistry for solitary fibrous tumour: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Nuclear STAT6 immunohistochemistry is the diagnostic surrogate for the NAB2::STAT6 fusion of solitary fibrous tumour (SFT); its sensitivity is established, but specificity varies for unexamined reasons. This review quantified pooled accuracy and tested whether antibody clone and nuclear threshold govern specificity. PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were searched to 29 June 2026 for studies reporting nuclear STAT6 immunohistochemistry against a reference standard (NAB2::STAT6 confirmation and/or expert consensus) in SFT and comparators, with extractable two-by-two data. Two reviewers screened, extracted data and applied QUADAS-2. A bivariate generalised linear mixed model gave summary sensitivity and specificity, and exploratory subgroup analysis and meta-regression tested antibody clone, anatomical site and reference-standard type. Twenty-three studies (1216 SFT and 4715 comparators) were included. Summary sensitivity was 98.7% (95% confidence interval 96.7-99.5) and specificity 99.1% (97.8-99.6); the diagnostic odds ratio was approximately 8656. The monoclonal YE361 subgroup (8 studies) reached specificity 99.9% (99.3-100), with one false positive among 861 comparators, versus 98.1% (96.0-99.1) for polyclonal and other antibodies. False positives concentrated in dedifferentiated liposarcoma and prostatic stromal tumours. Estimates were stable after removing studies at higher risk of bias (98.9%/99.1%) and on leave-one-out analysis; the Deeks test was non-significant (p = 0.08). Nuclear STAT6 immunohistochemistry is therefore highly sensitive and specific for SFT, and the residual specificity loss is structured and largely avoidable: the monoclonal YE361 read at a strict nuclear threshold is preferred, with MDM2 and CDK4 applied to exclude dedifferentiated liposarcoma when nuclear STAT6 is unexpectedly positive.

Humans

Artificial Intelligence for Diagnosing Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies.

PURPOSE: To identify, appraise, and synthesize the performance of artificial intelligence-based meibography reading as compared with human graders in diagnosing meibomian gland dysfunction. METHODS: We followed Cochrane methodology and reporting guidelines for diagnostic test accuracy reviews. To assess potential risk of bias and applicability, we used a modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 checklist. We applied bivariate logistic models to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity when appropriate and used the GRADE framework to rate the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: We identified 14 eligible studies involving 5511 predominantly middle-aged participants (average age: 27-55 years) who were primarily female (≥54.5%). A total of 18,926 meibography images were obtained through noncontact infrared (11 studies) or in vivo confocal microscopy (three studies). Two studies reported external validation of deep learning models, 12 reported internally validated models, and one reported both. All but one study had high risk of bias in at least one domain; 12 studies raised high or intermediate concern about applicability. Based on three external evaluations, the summary sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing meibomian gland dysfunction from normal glands were 97.5% (95% confidence interval: 77.5%-99.8%) and 85.5% (95% confidence interval: 47.3%-97.5%). Sources of heterogeneity in internally validated models included study population, case mix, and others. The overall evidence was very low to low certainty because of imprecision, high risk of bias, and concerns about applicability. CONCLUSIONS: Artificial intelligence-based meibography grading appears less accurate than human graders. Future studies should adopt rigorous designs, including a more diverse participant pool (or image set), and external validation.

Humans
Compare source metadata on this page

These are bibliographic comparisons, not experimental rankings. Follow the original document for methods and conditions.