Evidence grade: STRONG — Supported by strong evidence.
Deployment and trust depend entirely on external performance; if most claims collapse on transfer, the field's evidentiary base is weaker than it appears. Note the STRONG evidence for this failure mode comes from adjacent medical-imaging AI; the glioma-specific meta-review has not been done.
Internal AUCs are high; systematic reviews of medical-imaging AI (e.g. an emergency head-CT CNN meta-review [Menp2024]) find external validation rare and TRIPOD reporting adherence poor, and no equivalently rigorous glioma-imaging external-validation meta-review yet exists — the gap this question targets.
Meta-research: systematic re-validation of top-cited models on held-out multi-institutional data with standardized reporting (CLAIM/TRIPOD-AI); publish the generalization-gap distribution.
This is an educational research resource from Resonant Labs, not clinical advice. Evidence grades and controversies are summarized from the literature and may change as the field evolves.