Non-Cochrane · DTA · PM41485242

Classification of Salivary Gland Tumors on Ultrasound Using Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Chau Isabelle J, Kim Cory Hyun-Su, Nguyen Shaun A, et al. · Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.1002/ohn.70102

Findings

6 findings

Population
Patients with salivary gland tumors evaluated by ultrasoundArtificial intelligence models applied to ultrasound imagesHistopathology reference standard (final histopathology or core needle biopsy)Pooled specificity for classification of benign vs malignant
Test cohorts
Pooled specificity 0.86 [0.8, 0.92]
GRADE not reported
9 studies · 772 participants
Patients with salivary gland tumors evaluated by ultrasoundArtificial intelligence models applied to ultrasound imagesHistopathology reference standard (final histopathology or core needle biopsy)Pooled accuracy for classification of benign vs malignant
Test cohorts
Pooled accuracy 0.85 [0.81, 0.9]
GRADE not reported
9 studies · 772 participants
Patients with salivary gland tumors evaluated by ultrasoundArtificial intelligence models applied to ultrasound imagesHistopathology reference standard (final histopathology or core needle biopsy)Pooled sensitivity for classification of benign vs malignant
Test cohorts
Pooled sensitivity 0.91 [0.86, 0.95]
GRADE not reported
9 studies · 772 participants
Patients with parotid pleomorphic adenoma or Warthin tumor evaluated by ultrasoundArtificial intelligence models applied to ultrasound imagesHistopathology reference standard (postoperative histopathology)Pooled specificity for classification of pleomorphic adenoma vs Warthin tumor
Test cohorts
Pooled specificity 0.88 [0.81, 0.95]
GRADE not reported
3 studies · 135 participants
Patients with parotid pleomorphic adenoma or Warthin tumor evaluated by ultrasoundArtificial intelligence models applied to ultrasound imagesHistopathology reference standard (postoperative histopathology)Pooled accuracy for classification of pleomorphic adenoma vs Warthin tumor
Test cohorts
Pooled accuracy 0.84 [0.79, 0.9]
GRADE not reported
3 studies · 135 participants
Patients with parotid pleomorphic adenoma or Warthin tumor evaluated by ultrasoundArtificial intelligence models applied to ultrasound imagesHistopathology reference standard (postoperative histopathology)Pooled sensitivity for classification of pleomorphic adenoma vs Warthin tumor
Test cohorts
Pooled sensitivity 0.81 [0.74, 0.89]
GRADE not reported
3 studies · 135 participants

Included primary studies 13

Open in Studies
StudyYearAlso included byOutcomes it informs hereTrial data
Cheng 2023
Diagnosis of Salivary Gland Tumors Using Transfer Learning with Fine-Tuning and Gradual Unfreezing.
PMID:37958229
2023this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
He 2024
An ultrasound-based ensemble machine learning model for the preoperative classification of pleomorphic adenoma and Warthin tumor in the…
PMID:38570381
2024this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Jiang 2024
Deep learning-assisted diagnosis of benign and malignant parotid tumors based on ultrasound: a retrospective study.
PMID:38654281
2024this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Li 2022
A nomogram based on clinical information, conventional ultrasound and radiomics improves prediction of malignant parotid gland lesions.
PMID:34929334
2022this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Liu 2024
Deep learning based ultrasound analysis facilitates precise distinction between parotid pleomorphic adenoma and Warthin tumor.
PMID:38476360
2024this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Mao 2024
Multi-feature Fusion Network on Gray Scale Ultrasonography: Effective Differentiation of Adenolymphoma and Pleomorphic Adenoma.
PMID:38871552
2024this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Shan 2025
Machine Learning Differentiates Between Benign and Malignant Parotid Tumors With Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Features.
PMID:39557074
2025this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Tu 2023
Neural network combining with clinical ultrasonography: A new approach for classification of salivary gland tumors.
PMID:37222027
2023this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Wang 2022
The Diagnostic Value of Ultrasound-Based Deep Learning in Differentiating Parotid Gland Tumors
DOI:10.1155/2022/8192999
2022this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Wang 2022
The Diagnostic Value of Ultrasound-Based Deep Learning in Differentiating Parotid Gland Tumors.
PMID:35602298
2022this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Wang 2024
Differentiation of benign and malignant parotid gland tumors based on the fusion of radiomics and deep learning features on ultrasound…
PMID:38803533
2024this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Wei 2024
Deep learning-assisted diagnosis of benign and malignant parotid gland tumors based on automatic segmentation of ultrasound images: a…
PMID:39184051
2024this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Zhang 2023
A deep learning model for the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant salivary gland tumors based on ultrasound imaging and…
PMID:37179911
2023this review onlynot statednot extracted yet

Review question

ElementPlanned (methods)Found (results)
PopulationPatients of all ages with salivary gland lesions evaluated by ultrasoundPatients with salivary gland tumors (N=4721; 12 studies; mostly parotid; China n=10, Taiwan n=2)
InterventionArtificial intelligence (machine learning, deep learning, radiomics) combined with ultrasound to classify salivary gland tissueAI models with conventional ultrasound (11 studies) or contrast-enhanced ultrasound (1 study): deep learning (8), machine learning (2), combined machine and deep learning (1), radiomics (1)
ComparisonTraditional diagnostic methods; histopathology as reference standardFinal histopathology (postoperative or core needle biopsy) as reference standard
OutcomesAccuracy, sensitivity, specificity (or confusion matrix)Pooled sensitivity, specificity, accuracy in test cohorts
Study designsCohort studies, randomized controlled trials, case seriesRetrospective cohort studies, Oxford level of evidence 2 (n=12)
TimingNot specifiedNot specified