求助PDF
{"title":"Houston, We Have AI Problem! Quality Issues with Neuroimaging-Based Artificial Intelligence in Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Verena Dzialas, Elena Doering, Helena Eich, Antonio P Strafella, David E Vaillancourt, Kristina Simonyan, Thilo van Eimeren","doi":"10.1002/mds.30002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In recent years, many neuroimaging studies have applied artificial intelligence (AI) to facilitate existing challenges in Parkinson's disease (PD) diagnosis, prognosis, and intervention. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of neuroimaging-based AI studies and to assess their methodological quality. A PubMed search yielded 810 studies, of which 244 that investigated the utility of neuroimaging-based AI for PD diagnosis, prognosis, or intervention were included. We systematically categorized studies by outcomes and rated them with respect to five minimal quality criteria (MQC) pertaining to data splitting, data leakage, model complexity, performance reporting, and indication of biological plausibility. We found that the majority of studies aimed to distinguish PD patients from healthy controls (54%) or atypical parkinsonian syndromes (25%), whereas prognostic or interventional studies were sparse. Only 20% of evaluated studies passed all five MQC, with data leakage, non-minimal model complexity, and reporting of biological plausibility as the primary factors for quality loss. Data leakage was associated with a significant inflation of accuracies. Very few studies employed external test sets (8%), where accuracy was significantly lower, and 19% of studies did not account for data imbalance. Adherence to MQC was low across all observed years and journal impact factors. This review outlines that AI has been applied to a wide variety of research questions pertaining to PD; however, the number of studies failing to pass the MQC is alarming. Therefore, we provide recommendations to enhance the interpretability, generalizability, and clinical utility of future AI applications using neuroimaging in PD. © 2024 The Author(s). Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.</p>","PeriodicalId":213,"journal":{"name":"Movement Disorders","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Movement Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.30002","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
引用
批量引用
Abstract
In recent years, many neuroimaging studies have applied artificial intelligence (AI) to facilitate existing challenges in Parkinson's disease (PD) diagnosis, prognosis, and intervention. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of neuroimaging-based AI studies and to assess their methodological quality. A PubMed search yielded 810 studies, of which 244 that investigated the utility of neuroimaging-based AI for PD diagnosis, prognosis, or intervention were included. We systematically categorized studies by outcomes and rated them with respect to five minimal quality criteria (MQC) pertaining to data splitting, data leakage, model complexity, performance reporting, and indication of biological plausibility. We found that the majority of studies aimed to distinguish PD patients from healthy controls (54%) or atypical parkinsonian syndromes (25%), whereas prognostic or interventional studies were sparse. Only 20% of evaluated studies passed all five MQC, with data leakage, non-minimal model complexity, and reporting of biological plausibility as the primary factors for quality loss. Data leakage was associated with a significant inflation of accuracies. Very few studies employed external test sets (8%), where accuracy was significantly lower, and 19% of studies did not account for data imbalance. Adherence to MQC was low across all observed years and journal impact factors. This review outlines that AI has been applied to a wide variety of research questions pertaining to PD; however, the number of studies failing to pass the MQC is alarming. Therefore, we provide recommendations to enhance the interpretability, generalizability, and clinical utility of future AI applications using neuroimaging in PD. © 2024 The Author(s). Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
休斯顿,我们有人工智能问题!基于神经影像的人工智能在帕金森病中的质量问题:系统回顾
近年来,许多神经影像学研究应用人工智能(AI)来帮助解决帕金森病(PD)诊断、预后和干预方面的现有难题。本系统综述旨在概述基于神经影像学的人工智能研究,并评估其方法学质量。我们在 PubMed 上检索了 810 项研究,其中 244 项研究调查了基于神经影像的人工智能在 PD 诊断、预后或干预方面的效用。我们按照结果对研究进行了系统分类,并根据五项最低质量标准(MQC)对其进行了评分,这五项标准分别涉及数据分割、数据泄露、模型复杂性、性能报告和生物合理性指标。我们发现,大多数研究旨在区分帕金森病患者与健康对照组(54%)或非典型帕金森综合征(25%),而预后或干预研究则很少。仅有20%的受评研究通过了全部五项MQC,数据泄露、非最小模型复杂性和生物合理性报告是导致质量下降的主要因素。数据泄露与准确率的大幅上升有关。很少有研究采用外部测试集(8%),而外部测试集的准确率明显较低,19% 的研究没有考虑数据不平衡问题。在所有观察年份和期刊影响因子中,遵守 MQC 的比例都很低。本综述概述了人工智能已被广泛应用于与PD相关的各种研究问题;然而,未能通过MQC的研究数量令人震惊。因此,我们提出了一些建议,以提高未来人工智能应用于帕金森病神经影像学的可解释性、可推广性和临床实用性。© 2024 作者姓名运动障碍》由 Wiley Periodicals LLC 代表国际帕金森和运动障碍协会出版。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。