Artificial intelligence streamlines diagnosis and assessment of prognosis in Brugada syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cameron J. Leong, Sohat Sharma, Jayant Seth, Simon W. Rabkin
{"title":"Artificial intelligence streamlines diagnosis and assessment of prognosis in Brugada syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Cameron J. Leong, Sohat Sharma, Jayant Seth, Simon W. Rabkin","doi":"10.20517/chatmed.2024.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the diagnostic and prognostic utility of artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) algorithms in Brugada Syndrome (BrS).\n Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases were searched for relevant articles. Abstract and title screening, full-text review, and data extraction were conducted independently by two of the authors. Conflicts were resolved via discussion among authors. A risk-of-bias assessment was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool for diagnostic studies and the PROBAST tool for prognostic studies. Forest plots and the summary area under the receiver operating characteristic (SAUROC) curve were done in R.\n Results: A total of 12 papers were included in our study. Among the best-performing diagnostic algorithms from each study, the sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0.80 to 0.89 and 0.74 to 0.97, respectively. In overall studies, sensitivity was 0.845 ± 0.014 and specificity was 0.892 ± 0.062 using a random effects model. A pooled analysis of the summary area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (SAUROC) was 0.77 for diagnostic studies. Prognostic studies showed good performance as well, with the AUC of the best-performing prognostic algorithms ranging from 0.71 to 0.90.\n Conclusions: Overall, AI/ML algorithms had high diagnostic and prognostic accuracy. These results highlight the potential of AI/ML algorithms for the diagnosis and prognosis of BrS and permit a choice of the best-performing ML algorithms.","PeriodicalId":72693,"journal":{"name":"Connected health and telemedicine","volume":"81 19","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Connected health and telemedicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20517/chatmed.2024.03","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the diagnostic and prognostic utility of artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) algorithms in Brugada Syndrome (BrS). Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases were searched for relevant articles. Abstract and title screening, full-text review, and data extraction were conducted independently by two of the authors. Conflicts were resolved via discussion among authors. A risk-of-bias assessment was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool for diagnostic studies and the PROBAST tool for prognostic studies. Forest plots and the summary area under the receiver operating characteristic (SAUROC) curve were done in R. Results: A total of 12 papers were included in our study. Among the best-performing diagnostic algorithms from each study, the sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0.80 to 0.89 and 0.74 to 0.97, respectively. In overall studies, sensitivity was 0.845 ± 0.014 and specificity was 0.892 ± 0.062 using a random effects model. A pooled analysis of the summary area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (SAUROC) was 0.77 for diagnostic studies. Prognostic studies showed good performance as well, with the AUC of the best-performing prognostic algorithms ranging from 0.71 to 0.90. Conclusions: Overall, AI/ML algorithms had high diagnostic and prognostic accuracy. These results highlight the potential of AI/ML algorithms for the diagnosis and prognosis of BrS and permit a choice of the best-performing ML algorithms.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人工智能简化了 Brugada 综合征的诊断和预后评估:系统综述和荟萃分析
目的:本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在确定人工智能/机器学习(AI/ML)算法在布鲁格达综合征(BrS)中的诊断和预后效用。方法:根据《系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目》(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses,PRISMA)指南对文献进行系统综述和荟萃分析。在 MEDLINE、EMBASE、SCOPUS 和 WEB OF SCIENCE 数据库中检索了相关文章。摘要和标题筛选、全文审阅和数据提取由两位作者独立完成。作者之间的冲突通过讨论解决。诊断性研究使用 QUADAS-2 工具进行偏倚风险评估,预后性研究使用 PROBAST 工具进行偏倚风险评估。结果:我们的研究共纳入了 12 篇论文。在每项研究中表现最佳的诊断算法中,灵敏度和特异性分别为 0.80 至 0.89 和 0.74 至 0.97。采用随机效应模型,总体研究的灵敏度为 0.845 ± 0.014,特异度为 0.892 ± 0.062。诊断性研究的接收者操作特征曲线下的汇总面积(SAUROC)汇总分析为 0.77。预后研究也表现良好,表现最好的预后算法的AUC为0.71至0.90。结论:总体而言,人工智能/ML 算法具有很高的诊断和预后准确性。这些结果凸显了人工智能/ML 算法在 BrS 诊断和预后方面的潜力,并允许选择表现最佳的 ML 算法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Artificial intelligence streamlines diagnosis and assessment of prognosis in Brugada syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis The pivotal role of data harmonization in revolutionizing global healthcare: a framework and a case study An exploratory study of the relationship between pulse transit time and blood pressure based on causal inference Validation of deep learning models for cuffless blood pressure estimation on a large benchmarking dataset A multi-channel photoplethysmography array with contact-force regulation for tonoarteriographic imaging
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1