Diagnostic accuracy of machine learning classifiers for cataracts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 0.9 Q4 OPHTHALMOLOGY Expert Review of Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2022-10-28 DOI:10.1080/17469899.2022.2142120
Ronald Cheung, Samantha So, Monali S. Malvankar-Mehta
{"title":"Diagnostic accuracy of machine learning classifiers for cataracts: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Ronald Cheung, Samantha So, Monali S. Malvankar-Mehta","doi":"10.1080/17469899.2022.2142120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objective The objective of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyze the diagnostic accuracy of current machine learning classifiers for pediatric and adult cataracts. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses were searched systematically and thoroughly. Conferences held through Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, American Academy of Ophthalmology, and Canadian Society of Ophthalmology were searched. Studies were screened using Covidence software and data on sensitivity, specificity and area under curve were extracted from the included studies. STATA 15.0 was used to conduct the meta-analysis. Results Our search strategy identified 150 records from databases and 35 records from gray literature. Total of 21 records were used for the qualitative analysis and 11 records (100 134 images) were used for the quantitative analysis. In adult patients with cataracts, the pooled estimate for sensitivity was 0.948 [95% CI: 0.815–0.987] and specificity was 0.960 [95% CI: 0.924–0.980] for cataract screening using machine learning classifiers. For pediatric cataracts, the pooled estimate for sensitivity was 0.882 [95% CI: 0.696–0.960] and specificity was 0.891 [95% CI: 0.807–0.942]. Conclusion The included studies show promising results for the diagnostic accuracy of the machine learning classifiers for cataracts and its potential implementation in clinical settings. Prospero registration CRD42020219316","PeriodicalId":39989,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Ophthalmology","volume":"17 1","pages":"427 - 437"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17469899.2022.2142120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective The objective of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyze the diagnostic accuracy of current machine learning classifiers for pediatric and adult cataracts. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses were searched systematically and thoroughly. Conferences held through Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, American Academy of Ophthalmology, and Canadian Society of Ophthalmology were searched. Studies were screened using Covidence software and data on sensitivity, specificity and area under curve were extracted from the included studies. STATA 15.0 was used to conduct the meta-analysis. Results Our search strategy identified 150 records from databases and 35 records from gray literature. Total of 21 records were used for the qualitative analysis and 11 records (100 134 images) were used for the quantitative analysis. In adult patients with cataracts, the pooled estimate for sensitivity was 0.948 [95% CI: 0.815–0.987] and specificity was 0.960 [95% CI: 0.924–0.980] for cataract screening using machine learning classifiers. For pediatric cataracts, the pooled estimate for sensitivity was 0.882 [95% CI: 0.696–0.960] and specificity was 0.891 [95% CI: 0.807–0.942]. Conclusion The included studies show promising results for the diagnostic accuracy of the machine learning classifiers for cataracts and its potential implementation in clinical settings. Prospero registration CRD42020219316
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
机器学习分类器对白内障的诊断准确性:系统回顾和荟萃分析
摘要目的本研究旨在系统回顾和荟萃分析当前机器学习分类器对儿童和成人白内障的诊断准确性。方法系统、全面地检索MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL、ProQuest论文。检索了通过视觉和眼科研究协会、美国眼科学会和加拿大眼科学会举行的会议。使用Covidence软件筛选研究,并从纳入的研究中提取灵敏度、特异性和曲线下面积的数据。STATA 15.0用于进行荟萃分析。结果我们的搜索策略从数据库中识别出150条记录,从灰色文献中识别出35条记录。共有21个记录用于定性分析,11个记录(100 134张图像)用于定量分析。在患有白内障的成年患者中,使用机器学习分类器进行白内障筛查的敏感性汇总估计为0.948[95%CI:0.815–0.987],特异性为0.960[95%CI=0.924–0.980]。对于儿童白内障,敏感性的汇总估计值为0.882[95%CI:0.696-0.960],特异性为0.891[95%CI=0.807-0.942]。结论纳入的研究表明,机器学习分类器对白内障的诊断准确性及其在临床环境中的潜在应用具有很好的结果。Prospero注册CRD42020219316
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
Expert Review of Ophthalmology
Expert Review of Ophthalmology Health Professions-Optometry
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The worldwide problem of visual impairment is set to increase, as we are seeing increased longevity in developed countries. This will produce a crisis in vision care unless concerted action is taken. The substantial value that ophthalmic interventions confer to patients with eye diseases has led to intense research efforts in this area in recent years, with corresponding improvements in treatment, ophthalmic instrumentation and surgical techniques. As a result, the future for ophthalmology holds great promise as further exciting and innovative developments unfold.
期刊最新文献
How Genome-Wide Association Studies Transform Care for Patients at Risk of Glaucoma. Systemic and Ocular Associations of Keratoconus. Spaceflight associated neuro-ocular syndrome (SANS): a systematic review, implications for the sans case definition Stem cell therapy in retinal diseases: current evidence Morphometric analysis of orbital CT scan in a Jordanian sample
×
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