Zobraziť v EDS

Diagnostic Performance of Artificial Intelligence in Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-analysis.

Uložené v:
Podrobná bibliografia
Názov: Diagnostic Performance of Artificial Intelligence in Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-analysis.
Autori: Salehi, Mohammad Amin, Harandi, Hamid, Mohammadi, Soheil, Shahrabi Farahani, Mohammad, Shojaei, Shayan, Saleh, Ramy R.
Zdroj: Journal of Digital Imaging; Aug2024, Vol. 37 Issue 4, p1297-1311, 15p
Predmety: LIVER disease diagnosis, LIVER tumors, ARTIFICIAL intelligence, META-analysis, DESCRIPTIVE statistics, SYSTEMATIC reviews, MEDLINE, COMPUTER-aided diagnosis, ONLINE information services, DATA analysis software, CONFIDENCE intervals, HEPATOCELLULAR carcinoma, SENSITIVITY & specificity (Statistics), ALGORITHMS
Abstrakt: Due to the increasing interest in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in hepatocellular carcinoma detection, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to pool the data on diagnostic performance metrics of AI and to compare them with clinicians' performance. A search in PubMed and Scopus was performed in January 2024 to find studies that evaluated and/or validated an AI algorithm for the detection of HCC. We performed a meta-analysis to pool the data on the metrics of diagnostic performance. Subgroup analysis based on the modality of imaging and meta-regression based on multiple parameters were performed to find potential sources of heterogeneity. The risk of bias was assessed using Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) and Prediction Model Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) reporting guidelines. Out of 3177 studies screened, 44 eligible studies were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for internally validated AI algorithms were 84% (95% CI: 81,87) and 92% (95% CI: 90,94), respectively. Externally validated AI algorithms had a pooled sensitivity of 85% (95% CI: 78,89) and specificity of 84% (95% CI: 72,91). When clinicians were internally validated, their pooled sensitivity was 70% (95% CI: 60,78), while their pooled specificity was 85% (95% CI: 77,90). This study implies that AI can perform as a diagnostic supplement for clinicians and radiologists by screening images and highlighting regions of interest, thus improving workflow. [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.)
Databáza: Complementary Index
Popis
Abstrakt:Due to the increasing interest in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in hepatocellular carcinoma detection, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to pool the data on diagnostic performance metrics of AI and to compare them with clinicians' performance. A search in PubMed and Scopus was performed in January 2024 to find studies that evaluated and/or validated an AI algorithm for the detection of HCC. We performed a meta-analysis to pool the data on the metrics of diagnostic performance. Subgroup analysis based on the modality of imaging and meta-regression based on multiple parameters were performed to find potential sources of heterogeneity. The risk of bias was assessed using Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) and Prediction Model Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) reporting guidelines. Out of 3177 studies screened, 44 eligible studies were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for internally validated AI algorithms were 84% (95% CI: 81,87) and 92% (95% CI: 90,94), respectively. Externally validated AI algorithms had a pooled sensitivity of 85% (95% CI: 78,89) and specificity of 84% (95% CI: 72,91). When clinicians were internally validated, their pooled sensitivity was 70% (95% CI: 60,78), while their pooled specificity was 85% (95% CI: 77,90). This study implies that AI can perform as a diagnostic supplement for clinicians and radiologists by screening images and highlighting regions of interest, thus improving workflow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:08971889
DOI:10.1007/s10278-024-01058-1