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}
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.
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.