Artificial intelligence in lung cancer diagnostic imaging: a review of the reporting and conduct of research published 2018-2019.

BJR open Pub Date : 2023-06-06 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1259/bjro.20220033
Patricia Logullo, Angela MacCarthy, Paula Dhiman, Shona Kirtley, Jie Ma, Garrett Bullock, Gary S Collins
{"title":"Artificial intelligence in lung cancer diagnostic imaging: a review of the reporting and conduct of research published 2018-2019.","authors":"Patricia Logullo, Angela MacCarthy, Paula Dhiman, Shona Kirtley, Jie Ma, Garrett Bullock, Gary S Collins","doi":"10.1259/bjro.20220033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to describe the methodologies used to develop and evaluate models that use artificial intelligence (AI) to analyse lung images in order to detect, segment (outline borders of), or classify pulmonary nodules as benign or malignant.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In October 2019, we systematically searched the literature for original studies published between 2018 and 2019 that described prediction models using AI to evaluate human pulmonary nodules on diagnostic chest images. Two evaluators independently extracted information from studies, such as study aims, sample size, AI type, patient characteristics, and performance. We summarised data descriptively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review included 153 studies: 136 (89%) development-only studies, 12 (8%) development and validation, and 5 (3%) validation-only. CT scans were the most common type of image type used (83%), often acquired from public databases (58%). Eight studies (5%) compared model outputs with biopsy results. 41 studies (26.8%) reported patient characteristics. The models were based on different units of analysis, such as patients, images, nodules, or image slices or patches.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The methods used to develop and evaluate prediction models using AI to detect, segment, or classify pulmonary nodules in medical imaging vary, are poorly reported, and therefore difficult to evaluate. Transparent and complete reporting of methods, results and code would fill the gaps in information we observed in the study publications.</p><p><strong>Advances in knowledge: </strong>We reviewed the methodology of AI models detecting nodules on lung images and found that the models were poorly reported and had no description of patient characteristics, with just a few comparing models' outputs with biopsies results. When lung biopsy is not available, lung-RADS could help standardise the comparisons between the human radiologist and the machine. The field of radiology should not give up principles from the diagnostic accuracy studies, such as the choice for the correct ground truth, just because AI is used. Clear and complete reporting of the reference standard used would help radiologists trust in the performance that AI models claim to have. This review presents clear recommendations about the essential methodological aspects of diagnostic models that should be incorporated in studies using AI to help detect or segmentate lung nodules. The manuscript also reinforces the need for more complete and transparent reporting, which can be helped using the recommended reporting guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":72419,"journal":{"name":"BJR open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10301715/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJR open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1259/bjro.20220033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to describe the methodologies used to develop and evaluate models that use artificial intelligence (AI) to analyse lung images in order to detect, segment (outline borders of), or classify pulmonary nodules as benign or malignant.

Methods: In October 2019, we systematically searched the literature for original studies published between 2018 and 2019 that described prediction models using AI to evaluate human pulmonary nodules on diagnostic chest images. Two evaluators independently extracted information from studies, such as study aims, sample size, AI type, patient characteristics, and performance. We summarised data descriptively.

Results: The review included 153 studies: 136 (89%) development-only studies, 12 (8%) development and validation, and 5 (3%) validation-only. CT scans were the most common type of image type used (83%), often acquired from public databases (58%). Eight studies (5%) compared model outputs with biopsy results. 41 studies (26.8%) reported patient characteristics. The models were based on different units of analysis, such as patients, images, nodules, or image slices or patches.

Conclusion: The methods used to develop and evaluate prediction models using AI to detect, segment, or classify pulmonary nodules in medical imaging vary, are poorly reported, and therefore difficult to evaluate. Transparent and complete reporting of methods, results and code would fill the gaps in information we observed in the study publications.

Advances in knowledge: We reviewed the methodology of AI models detecting nodules on lung images and found that the models were poorly reported and had no description of patient characteristics, with just a few comparing models' outputs with biopsies results. When lung biopsy is not available, lung-RADS could help standardise the comparisons between the human radiologist and the machine. The field of radiology should not give up principles from the diagnostic accuracy studies, such as the choice for the correct ground truth, just because AI is used. Clear and complete reporting of the reference standard used would help radiologists trust in the performance that AI models claim to have. This review presents clear recommendations about the essential methodological aspects of diagnostic models that should be incorporated in studies using AI to help detect or segmentate lung nodules. The manuscript also reinforces the need for more complete and transparent reporting, which can be helped using the recommended reporting guidelines.

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
人工智能在肺癌诊断成像中的应用:2018-2019年发表的研究报告和开展情况综述。
研究目的本研究旨在描述用于开发和评估使用人工智能(AI)分析肺部图像以检测、分割(勾勒边界)或将肺部结节分类为良性或恶性的模型的方法:2019年10月,我们系统地检索了2018年至2019年间发表的文献,这些文献描述了使用人工智能评估诊断性胸部图像上人类肺结节的预测模型。两名评估人员独立提取了研究信息,如研究目的、样本大小、人工智能类型、患者特征和性能。我们对数据进行了描述性总结:综述包括 153 项研究:136项(89%)为纯开发研究,12项(8%)为开发和验证研究,5项(3%)为纯验证研究。CT 扫描是最常用的图像类型(83%),通常从公共数据库中获取(58%)。八项研究(5%)将模型输出结果与活检结果进行了比较。41项研究(26.8%)报告了患者特征。这些模型基于不同的分析单位,如患者、图像、结节或图像切片或斑块:结论:使用人工智能开发和评估预测模型以检测、分割或分类医学影像中的肺部结节的方法各不相同,报告较少,因此难以评估。透明、完整地报告方法、结果和代码将填补我们在研究出版物中观察到的信息空白:我们审查了在肺部图像上检测结节的人工智能模型的方法,发现这些模型的报告很少,也没有对患者特征进行描述,只有少数模型将模型的输出结果与活检结果进行了比较。在无法进行肺活检的情况下,lung-RADS 有助于规范人类放射医师与机器之间的比较。放射学领域不应因为使用了人工智能就放弃诊断准确性研究的原则,如选择正确的地面实况。清晰完整地报告所使用的参考标准将有助于放射科医生相信人工智能模型所宣称的性能。这篇综述就诊断模型的基本方法学方面提出了明确的建议,在使用人工智能帮助检测或分割肺结节的研究中应纳入这些建议。手稿还强调了更完整、更透明的报告的必要性,而推荐的报告指南则有助于实现这一点。
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
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Three-dimensional dose prediction based on deep convolutional neural networks for brain cancer in CyberKnife: accurate beam modelling of homogeneous tissue. Advancing radiology practice and research: harnessing the potential of large language models amidst imperfections. Improvement in paediatric CT use and justification: a single-centre experience. Deuterium MR spectroscopy: potential applications in oncology research. Unlocking the potential of photon counting detector CT for paediatric imaging: a pictorial essay.
×
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