人工智能在检测原发性恶性骨肿瘤中的诊断性能:一项 Meta 分析

IF 2.9 2区 工程技术 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Journal of Digital Imaging Pub Date : 2024-01-12 DOI:10.1007/s10278-023-00945-3
Mohammad Amin Salehi, Soheil Mohammadi, Hamid Harandi, Seyed Sina Zakavi, Ali Jahanshahi, Mohammad Shahrabi Farahani, Jim S. Wu
{"title":"人工智能在检测原发性恶性骨肿瘤中的诊断性能:一项 Meta 分析","authors":"Mohammad Amin Salehi, Soheil Mohammadi, Hamid Harandi, Seyed Sina Zakavi, Ali Jahanshahi, Mohammad Shahrabi Farahani, Jim S. Wu","doi":"10.1007/s10278-023-00945-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We aim to conduct a meta-analysis on studies that evaluated the diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in the detection of primary bone tumors, distinguishing them from other bone lesions, and comparing them with clinician assessment. A systematic search was conducted using a combination of keywords related to bone tumors and AI. After extracting contingency tables from all included studies, we performed a meta-analysis using random-effects model to determine the pooled sensitivity and specificity, accompanied by their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). Quality assessment was evaluated using a modified version of Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) and Prediction Model Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). The pooled sensitivities for AI algorithms and clinicians on internal validation test sets for detecting bone neoplasms were 84% (95% CI: 79.88) and 76% (95% CI: 64.85), and pooled specificities were 86% (95% CI: 81.90) and 64% (95% CI: 55.72), respectively. At external validation, the pooled sensitivity and specificity for AI algorithms were 84% (95% CI: 75.90) and 91% (95% CI: 83.96), respectively. The same numbers for clinicians were 85% (95% CI: 73.92) and 94% (95% CI: 89.97), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for clinicians with AI assistance were 95% (95% CI: 86.98) and 57% (95% CI: 48.66). Caution is needed when interpreting findings due to potential limitations. Further research is needed to bridge this gap in scientific understanding and promote effective implementation for medical practice advancement.</p>","PeriodicalId":50214,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Digital Imaging","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic Performance of Artificial Intelligence in Detection of Primary Malignant Bone Tumors: a Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Mohammad Amin Salehi, Soheil Mohammadi, Hamid Harandi, Seyed Sina Zakavi, Ali Jahanshahi, Mohammad Shahrabi Farahani, Jim S. Wu\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10278-023-00945-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>We aim to conduct a meta-analysis on studies that evaluated the diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in the detection of primary bone tumors, distinguishing them from other bone lesions, and comparing them with clinician assessment. A systematic search was conducted using a combination of keywords related to bone tumors and AI. After extracting contingency tables from all included studies, we performed a meta-analysis using random-effects model to determine the pooled sensitivity and specificity, accompanied by their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). Quality assessment was evaluated using a modified version of Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) and Prediction Model Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). The pooled sensitivities for AI algorithms and clinicians on internal validation test sets for detecting bone neoplasms were 84% (95% CI: 79.88) and 76% (95% CI: 64.85), and pooled specificities were 86% (95% CI: 81.90) and 64% (95% CI: 55.72), respectively. At external validation, the pooled sensitivity and specificity for AI algorithms were 84% (95% CI: 75.90) and 91% (95% CI: 83.96), respectively. The same numbers for clinicians were 85% (95% CI: 73.92) and 94% (95% CI: 89.97), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for clinicians with AI assistance were 95% (95% CI: 86.98) and 57% (95% CI: 48.66). Caution is needed when interpreting findings due to potential limitations. Further research is needed to bridge this gap in scientific understanding and promote effective implementation for medical practice advancement.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50214,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Digital Imaging\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Digital Imaging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-023-00945-3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Digital Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-023-00945-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们旨在对人工智能(AI)算法在检测原发性骨肿瘤、将其与其他骨病变区分开来以及与临床医生评估进行比较方面的诊断性能进行评估的研究进行荟萃分析。我们使用与骨肿瘤和人工智能相关的关键词进行了系统搜索。从所有纳入研究中提取或然率表后,我们使用随机效应模型进行了荟萃分析,以确定汇总的灵敏度和特异性,以及各自的 95% 置信区间 (CI)。质量评估采用改良版的个人预后或诊断多变量预测模型透明报告(TRIPOD)和预测模型研究偏倚风险评估工具(PROBAST)。在内部验证测试集中,人工智能算法和临床医生检测骨肿瘤的集合灵敏度分别为 84% (95% CI: 79.88) 和 76% (95% CI: 64.85),集合特异度分别为 86% (95% CI: 81.90) 和 64% (95% CI: 55.72)。在外部验证中,人工智能算法的集合灵敏度和特异度分别为 84% (95% CI: 75.90) 和 91% (95% CI: 83.96)。临床医生的敏感性和特异性分别为 85% (95% CI: 73.92) 和 94% (95% CI: 89.97)。临床医生在人工智能辅助下的敏感性和特异性分别为 95% (95% CI: 86.98) 和 57% (95% CI: 48.66)。由于潜在的局限性,在解释研究结果时需要谨慎。需要进一步开展研究,以弥补科学认识上的这一差距,并促进有效实施,推动医疗实践的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Diagnostic Performance of Artificial Intelligence in Detection of Primary Malignant Bone Tumors: a Meta-Analysis

We aim to conduct a meta-analysis on studies that evaluated the diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in the detection of primary bone tumors, distinguishing them from other bone lesions, and comparing them with clinician assessment. A systematic search was conducted using a combination of keywords related to bone tumors and AI. After extracting contingency tables from all included studies, we performed a meta-analysis using random-effects model to determine the pooled sensitivity and specificity, accompanied by their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). Quality assessment was evaluated using a modified version of Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) and Prediction Model Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). The pooled sensitivities for AI algorithms and clinicians on internal validation test sets for detecting bone neoplasms were 84% (95% CI: 79.88) and 76% (95% CI: 64.85), and pooled specificities were 86% (95% CI: 81.90) and 64% (95% CI: 55.72), respectively. At external validation, the pooled sensitivity and specificity for AI algorithms were 84% (95% CI: 75.90) and 91% (95% CI: 83.96), respectively. The same numbers for clinicians were 85% (95% CI: 73.92) and 94% (95% CI: 89.97), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for clinicians with AI assistance were 95% (95% CI: 86.98) and 57% (95% CI: 48.66). Caution is needed when interpreting findings due to potential limitations. Further research is needed to bridge this gap in scientific understanding and promote effective implementation for medical practice advancement.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Digital Imaging
Journal of Digital Imaging 医学-核医学
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
6.80%
发文量
192
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Digital Imaging (JDI) is the official peer-reviewed journal of the Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine (SIIM). JDI’s goal is to enhance the exchange of knowledge encompassed by the general topic of Imaging Informatics in Medicine such as research and practice in clinical, engineering, and information technologies and techniques in all medical imaging environments. JDI topics are of interest to researchers, developers, educators, physicians, and imaging informatics professionals. Suggested Topics PACS and component systems; imaging informatics for the enterprise; image-enabled electronic medical records; RIS and HIS; digital image acquisition; image processing; image data compression; 3D, visualization, and multimedia; speech recognition; computer-aided diagnosis; facilities design; imaging vocabularies and ontologies; Transforming the Radiological Interpretation Process (TRIP™); DICOM and other standards; workflow and process modeling and simulation; quality assurance; archive integrity and security; teleradiology; digital mammography; and radiological informatics education.
期刊最新文献
Intra-Individual Reproducibility of Automated Abdominal Organ Segmentation—Performance of TotalSegmentator Compared to Human Readers and an Independent nnU-Net Model Teleradiology-Based Referrals for Patients with Gastroenterological Diseases Between Tertiary and Regional Hospitals: A Hospital-to-Hospital Approach Vital Characteristics Cellular Neural Network (VCeNN) for Melanoma Lesion Segmentation: A Biologically Inspired Deep Learning Approach Septic Arthritis Modeling Using Sonographic Fusion with Attention and Selective Transformation: a Preliminary Study Assessment of Age-Related Differences in Lower Leg Muscles Quality Using Radiomic Features of Magnetic Resonance Images
×
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