Zobrazit v EDS

Diagnostic Performance of Artificial Intelligence in Detection of Primary Malignant Bone Tumors: a Meta-Analysis.

Uloženo v:
Podrobná bibliografie
Název: Diagnostic Performance of Artificial Intelligence in Detection of Primary Malignant Bone Tumors: a Meta-Analysis.
Autoři: Salehi, Mohammad Amin, Mohammadi, Soheil, Harandi, Hamid, Zakavi, Seyed Sina, Jahanshahi, Ali, Shahrabi Farahani, Mohammad, Wu, Jim S.
Zdroj: Journal of Digital Imaging; Apr2024, Vol. 37 Issue 2, p766-777, 12p
Témata: PREDICTION models, ARTIFICIAL intelligence, CINAHL database, BONE tumors, META-analysis, DESCRIPTIVE statistics, SYSTEMATIC reviews, MEDLINE, ONLINE information services, CONFIDENCE intervals, MACHINE learning, ALGORITHMS, SENSITIVITY & specificity (Statistics)
Abstrakt: We aim to conduct a meta-analysis on studies that evaluated the diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in the detection of primary bone tumors, distinguishing them from other bone lesions, and comparing them with clinician assessment. A systematic search was conducted using a combination of keywords related to bone tumors and AI. After extracting contingency tables from all included studies, we performed a meta-analysis using random-effects model to determine the pooled sensitivity and specificity, accompanied by their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). Quality assessment was evaluated using a modified version of Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) and Prediction Model Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). The pooled sensitivities for AI algorithms and clinicians on internal validation test sets for detecting bone neoplasms were 84% (95% CI: 79.88) and 76% (95% CI: 64.85), and pooled specificities were 86% (95% CI: 81.90) and 64% (95% CI: 55.72), respectively. At external validation, the pooled sensitivity and specificity for AI algorithms were 84% (95% CI: 75.90) and 91% (95% CI: 83.96), respectively. The same numbers for clinicians were 85% (95% CI: 73.92) and 94% (95% CI: 89.97), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for clinicians with AI assistance were 95% (95% CI: 86.98) and 57% (95% CI: 48.66). Caution is needed when interpreting findings due to potential limitations. Further research is needed to bridge this gap in scientific understanding and promote effective implementation for medical practice advancement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Journal of Digital Imaging is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Databáze: Complementary Index
Popis
Abstrakt:We aim to conduct a meta-analysis on studies that evaluated the diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in the detection of primary bone tumors, distinguishing them from other bone lesions, and comparing them with clinician assessment. A systematic search was conducted using a combination of keywords related to bone tumors and AI. After extracting contingency tables from all included studies, we performed a meta-analysis using random-effects model to determine the pooled sensitivity and specificity, accompanied by their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). Quality assessment was evaluated using a modified version of Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) and Prediction Model Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). The pooled sensitivities for AI algorithms and clinicians on internal validation test sets for detecting bone neoplasms were 84% (95% CI: 79.88) and 76% (95% CI: 64.85), and pooled specificities were 86% (95% CI: 81.90) and 64% (95% CI: 55.72), respectively. At external validation, the pooled sensitivity and specificity for AI algorithms were 84% (95% CI: 75.90) and 91% (95% CI: 83.96), respectively. The same numbers for clinicians were 85% (95% CI: 73.92) and 94% (95% CI: 89.97), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for clinicians with AI assistance were 95% (95% CI: 86.98) and 57% (95% CI: 48.66). Caution is needed when interpreting findings due to potential limitations. Further research is needed to bridge this gap in scientific understanding and promote effective implementation for medical practice advancement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:08971889
DOI:10.1007/s10278-023-00945-3