Dataset Information

Artificial Intelligence Algorithms for Analysis of Geographic Atrophy: A Review and Evaluation.

ABSTRACT: Purpose:The purpose of this study was to summarize and evaluate artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms used in geographic atrophy (GA) diagnostic processes (e.g. isolating lesions or disease progression). Methods:The search strategy and selection of publications were both conducted in accordance with the Preferred of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed and Web of Science were used to extract literary data. The algorithms were summarized by objective, performance, and scope of coverage of GA diagnosis (e.g. lesion automation and GA progression). Results:Twenty-seven studies were identified for this review. A total of 18 publications focused on lesion segmentation only, 2 were designed to detect and classify GA, 2 were designed to predict future overall GA progression, 3 focused on prediction of future spatial GA progression, and 2 focused on prediction of visual function in GA. GA-related algorithms reported sensitivities from 0.47 to 0.98, specificities from 0.73 to 0.99, accuracies from 0.42 to 0.995, and Dice coefficients from 0.66 to 0.89. Conclusions:Current GA-AI publications have a predominant focus on lesion segmentation and a minor focus on classification and progression analysis. AI could be applied to other facets of GA diagnoses, such as understanding the role of hyperfluorescent areas in GA. Using AI for GA has several advantages, including improved diagnostic accuracy and faster processing speeds. Translational Relevance:AI can be used to quantify GA lesions and therefore allows one to impute visual function and quality-of-life. However, there is a need for the development of reliable and objective models and software to predict the rate of GA progression and to quantify improvements due to interventions.

SUBMITTER: Arslan J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7594588 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Artificial Intelligence Algorithms for Analysis of Geographic Atrophy: A Review and Evaluation.

Arslan Janan J Samarasinghe Gihan G Benke Kurt K KK Sowmya Arcot A Wu Zhichao Z Guymer Robyn H RH Baird Paul N PN

Translational vision science & technology 20201026 2

<h4>Purpose</h4>The purpose of this study was to summarize and evaluate artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms used in geographic atrophy (GA) diagnostic processes (e.g. isolating lesions or disease progression).<h4>Methods</h4>The search strategy and selection of publications were both conducted in accordance with the Preferred of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed and Web of Science were used to extract literary data. The algorit ...[more]

PMID: 33173613

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceA computer algorithm that performs at or above the level of radiologists in mammography screening assessment could improve the effectiveness of breast cancer screening.ObjectiveTo perform an external evaluation of 3 commercially available artificial intelligence (AI) computer-aided detection algorithms as independent mammography readers and to assess the screening performance when combined with radiologists.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective case-control study was based on a double-reader population-based mammography screening cohort of women screened at an academic hospital in Stockholm, Sweden, from 2008 to 2015. The study included 8805 women aged 40 to 74 years who underwent mammography screening and who did not have implants or prior breast cancer. The study sample included 739 women who were diagnosed as having breast cancer (positive) and a random sample of 8066 healthy controls (negative for breast cancer).Main outcomes and measuresPositive follow-up findings were determined by pathology-verified diagnosis at screening or within 12 months thereafter. Negative follow-up findings were determined by a 2-year cancer-free follow-up. Three AI computer-aided detection algorithms (AI-1, AI-2, and AI-3), sourced from different vendors, yielded a continuous score for the suspicion of cancer in each mammography examination. For a decision of normal or abnormal, the cut point was defined by the mean specificity of the first-reader radiologists (96.6%).ResultsThe median age of study participants was 60 years (interquartile range, 50-66 years) for 739 women who received a diagnosis of breast cancer and 54 years (interquartile range, 47-63 years) for 8066 healthy controls. The cases positive for cancer comprised 618 (84%) screen detected and 121 (16%) clinically detected within 12 months of the screening examination. The area under the receiver operating curve for cancer detection was 0.956 (95% CI, 0.948-0.965) for AI-1, 0.922 (95% CI, 0.910-0.934) for AI-2, and 0.920 (95% CI, 0.909-0.931) for AI-3. At the specificity of the radiologists, the sensitivities were 81.9% for AI-1, 67.0% for AI-2, 67.4% for AI-3, 77.4% for first-reader radiologist, and 80.1% for second-reader radiologist. Combining AI-1 with first-reader radiologists achieved 88.6% sensitivity at 93.0% specificity (abnormal defined by either of the 2 making an abnormal assessment). No other examined combination of AI algorithms and radiologists surpassed this sensitivity level.Conclusions and relevanceTo our knowledge, this study is the first independent evaluation of several AI computer-aided detection algorithms for screening mammography. The results of this study indicated that a commercially available AI computer-aided detection algorithm can assess screening mammograms with a sufficient diagnostic performance to be further evaluated as an independent reader in prospective clinical trials. Combining the first readers with the best algorithm identified more cases positive for cancer than combining the first readers with second readers.

Project description:ObjectiveThere has been a large amount of research in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) as applied to clinical radiology. However, these studies vary in design and quality and systematic reviews of the entire field are lacking.This systematic review aimed to identify all papers that used deep learning in radiology to survey the literature and to evaluate their methods. We aimed to identify the key questions being addressed in the literature and to identify the most effective methods employed.MethodsWe followed the PRISMA guidelines and performed a systematic review of studies of AI in radiology published from 2015 to 2019. Our published protocol was prospectively registered.ResultsOur search yielded 11,083 results. Seven hundred sixty-seven full texts were reviewed, and 535 articles were included. Ninety-eight percent were retrospective cohort studies. The median number of patients included was 460. Most studies involved MRI (37%). Neuroradiology was the most common subspecialty. Eighty-eight percent used supervised learning. The majority of studies undertook a segmentation task (39%). Performance comparison was with a state-of-the-art model in 37%. The most used established architecture was UNet (14%). The median performance for the most utilised evaluation metrics was Dice of 0.89 (range .49-.99), AUC of 0.903 (range 1.00-0.61) and Accuracy of 89.4 (range 70.2-100). Of the 77 studies that externally validated their results and allowed for direct comparison, performance on average decreased by 6% at external validation (range increase of 4% to decrease 44%).ConclusionThis systematic review has surveyed the major advances in AI as applied to clinical radiology.Key points• While there are many papers reporting expert-level results by using deep learning in radiology, most apply only a narrow range of techniques to a narrow selection of use cases. • The literature is dominated by retrospective cohort studies with limited external validation with high potential for bias. • The recent advent of AI extensions to systematic reporting guidelines and prospective trial registration along with a focus on external validation and explanations show potential for translation of the hype surrounding AI from code to clinic.

Project description:ImportanceClinical artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have the potential to improve clinical care, but fair, generalizable algorithms depend on the clinical data on which they are trained and tested.ObjectiveTo assess whether data sets used for training diagnostic AI algorithms addressing skin disease are adequately described and to identify potential sources of bias in these data sets.Data sourcesIn this scoping review, PubMed was used to search for peer-reviewed research articles published between January 1, 2015, and November 1, 2020, with the following paired search terms: deep learning and dermatology, artificial intelligence and dermatology, deep learning and dermatologist, and artificial intelligence and dermatologist.Study selectionStudies that developed or tested an existing deep learning algorithm for triage, diagnosis, or monitoring using clinical or dermoscopic images of skin disease were selected, and the articles were independently reviewed by 2 investigators to verify that they met selection criteria.Consensus processData set audit criteria were determined by consensus of all authors after reviewing existing literature to highlight data set transparency and sources of bias.ResultsA total of 70 unique studies were included. Among these studies, 1 065 291 images were used to develop or test AI algorithms, of which only 257 372 (24.2%) were publicly available. Only 14 studies (20.0%) included descriptions of patient ethnicity or race in at least 1 data set used. Only 7 studies (10.0%) included any information about skin tone in at least 1 data set used. Thirty-six of the 56 studies developing new AI algorithms for cutaneous malignant neoplasms (64.3%) met the gold standard criteria for disease labeling. Public data sets were cited more often than private data sets, suggesting that public data sets contribute more to new development and benchmarks.Conclusions and relevanceThis scoping review identified 3 issues in data sets that are used to develop and test clinical AI algorithms for skin disease that should be addressed before clinical translation: (1) sparsity of data set characterization and lack of transparency, (2) nonstandard and unverified disease labels, and (3) inability to fully assess patient diversity used for algorithm development and testing.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the rigor, generalizability, and reproducibility of published classification and detection artificial intelligence (AI) models for prostate cancer (PCa) on MRI using the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) guidelines, a 42-item checklist that is considered a measure of best practice for presenting and reviewing medical imaging AI research.Materials and methodsThis review searched English literature for studies proposing PCa AI detection and classification models on MRI. Each study was evaluated with the CLAIM checklist. The additional outcomes for which data were sought included measures of AI model performance (eg, area under the curve [AUC], sensitivity, specificity, free-response operating characteristic curves), training and validation and testing group sample size, AI approach, detection versus classification AI, public data set utilization, MRI sequences used, and definition of gold standard for ground truth. The percentage of CLAIM checklist fulfillment was used to stratify studies into quartiles. Wilcoxon's rank-sum test was used for pair-wise comparisons.ResultsIn all, 75 studies were identified, and 53 studies qualified for analysis. The original CLAIM items that most studies did not fulfill includes item 12 (77% no): de-identification methods; item 13 (68% no): handling missing data; item 15 (47% no): rationale for choosing ground truth reference standard; item 18 (55% no): measurements of inter- and intrareader variability; item 31 (60% no): inclusion of validated interpretability maps; item 37 (92% no): inclusion of failure analysis to elucidate AI model weaknesses. An AUC score versus percentage CLAIM fulfillment quartile revealed a significant difference of the mean AUC scores between quartile 1 versus quartile 2 (0.78 versus 0.86, P = .034) and quartile 1 versus quartile 4 (0.78 versus 0.89, P = .003) scores. Based on additional information and outcome metrics gathered in this study, additional measures of best practice are defined. These new items include disclosure of public dataset usage, ground truth definition in comparison to other referenced works in the defined task, and sample size power calculation.ConclusionA large proportion of AI studies do not fulfill key items in CLAIM guidelines within their methods and results sections. The percentage of CLAIM checklist fulfillment is weakly associated with improved AI model performance. Additions or supplementations to CLAIM are recommended to improve publishing standards and aid reviewers in determining study rigor.

Project description:PURPOSE:There is a lack of agreement regarding the types of lesions and clinical conditions that should be included in the term "geographic atrophy." Varied and conflicting views prevail throughout the literature and are currently used by retinal experts and other health care professionals. METHODS:We reviewed the nominal definition of the term "geographic atrophy" and conducted a search of the ophthalmologic literature focusing on preceding terminologies and the first citations of the term "geographic atrophy" secondary to age-related macular degeneration. RESULTS:According to the nominal definition, the term "geography" stands for a detailed description of the surface features of a specific region, indicating its relative position. However, it does not necessarily imply that the borders of the region must be sharply demarcated or related to any anatomical structures. The term "geographical areas of atrophy" was initially cited in the 1960s in the ophthalmologic literature in the context of uveitic eye disease and shortly thereafter also for the description of variants of "senile macular degeneration." However, no direct explanation could be found in the literature as to why the terms "geographical" and "geographic" were chosen. Presumably the terms were used as the atrophic regions resembled the map of a continent or well-defined country borders on thematic geographical maps. With the evolution of the terminology, the commonly used adjunct "of the retinal pigment epithelium" was frequently omitted and solely the term "geographic atrophy" prevailed for the nonexudative late-stage of age-related macular degeneration itself. Along with the quantification of atrophic areas, based on different imaging modalities and the use of both manual and semiautomated approaches, various and inconsistent definitions for the minimal lesion diameter or size of atrophic lesions have also emerged. CONCLUSION:Reconsideration of the application of the term "geographic atrophy" in the context of age-related macular degeneration seems to be prudent given ongoing advances in multimodal retinal imaging technology with identification of various phenotypic characteristics, and the observation of atrophy development in eyes under antiangiogenic therapy.

Dataset Information

Artificial Intelligence Algorithms for Analysis of Geographic Atrophy: A Review and Evaluation.

Publications

Artificial Intelligence Algorithms for Analysis of Geographic Atrophy: A Review and Evaluation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets