The diagnostic accuracy of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted CT imaging in COVID-19 disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Moezzi M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8099790 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Tuberculosis (TB) remains one of the leading causes of death among infectious diseases worldwide. Early screening and diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) is crucial in TB control, and tend to benefit from artificial intelligence. Here, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of a variety of artificial intelligence methods in medical imaging for PTB. We searched MEDLINE and Embase with the OVID platform to identify trials published update to November 2022 that evaluated the effectiveness of artificial-intelligence-based software in medical imaging of patients with PTB. After data extraction, the quality of studies was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using a bivariate random-effects model. In total, 3987 references were initially identified and 61 studies were finally included, covering a wide range of 124,959 individuals. The pooled sensitivity and the specificity were 91% (95% confidence interval (CI), 89–93%) and 65% (54–75%), respectively, in clinical trials, and 94% (89–96%) and 95% (91–97%), respectively, in model-development studies. These findings have demonstrated that artificial-intelligence-based software could serve as an accurate tool to diagnose PTB in medical imaging. However, standardized reporting guidance regarding AI-specific trials and multicenter clinical trials is urgently needed to truly transform this cutting-edge technology into clinical practice.
| S-EPMC9820940 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Artificial intelligence (AI) centred diagnostic systems are increasingly recognised as robust solutions in healthcare delivery pathways. In turn, there has been a concurrent rise in secondary research studies regarding these technologies in order to influence key clinical and policymaking decisions. It is therefore essential that these studies accurately appraise methodological quality and risk of bias within shortlisted trials and reports. In order to assess whether this critical step is performed, we undertook a meta-research study evaluating adherence to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool within AI diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews. A literature search was conducted on all studies published from 2000 to December 2020. Of 50 included reviews, 36 performed the quality assessment, of which 27 utilised the QUADAS-2 tool. Bias was reported across all four domains of QUADAS-2. Two hundred forty-three of 423 studies (57.5%) across all systematic reviews utilising QUADAS-2 reported a high or unclear risk of bias in the patient selection domain, 110 (26%) reported a high or unclear risk of bias in the index test domain, 121 (28.6%) in the reference standard domain and 157 (37.1%) in the flow and timing domain. This study demonstrates the incomplete uptake of quality assessment tools in reviews of AI-based diagnostic accuracy studies and highlights inconsistent reporting across all domains of quality assessment. Poor standards of reporting act as barriers to clinical implementation. The creation of an AI-specific extension for quality assessment tools of diagnostic accuracy AI studies may facilitate the safe translation of AI tools into clinical practice.
| S-EPMC8795185 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo clarify the efficacy of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted imaging in the diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) through a meta-analysis.MethodsRelevant literature on AI for early DDH diagnosis was searched in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and The Cochrane Library databases until April 4, 2024. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool was used to assess the quality of included studies. Revman5.4 and StataSE-64 software were used to calculate the combined sensitivity, specificity, AUC value, and DOC value of AI-assisted imaging for DDH diagnosis.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 13 studies (6 prospective and 7 retrospective) with 28 AI models and a total of 10,673 samples. The summary sensitivity, specificity, AUC value, and DOC value were 99.0% (95% CI: 97.0-100.0%), 94.0% (95% CI: 89.0-96.0%), 99.0% (95% CI: 98.0-100.0%), and 1342 (95% CI: 469-3842), respectively.ConclusionAI-assisted imaging demonstrates high diagnostic efficacy for DDH detection, improving the accuracy of early DDH imaging examination. More prospective studies are needed to further confirm the value of AI-assisted imaging for early DDH diagnosis.
| S-EPMC11360681 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWith the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) in ophthalmology, the need to define its diagnostic accuracy is increasingly important. The review aims to elucidate the diagnostic accuracy of AI algorithms in screening for all ophthalmic conditions in patient care settings that involve digital imaging modalities, using the reference standard of human graders.MethodsThis is a systematic review and meta-analysis. A literature search will be conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and Wiley Cochrane CENTRAL from January 1, 2000, to December 20, 2021. Studies will be selected via screening the titles and abstracts, followed by full-text screening. Articles that compare the results of AI-graded ophthalmic images with results from human graders as a reference standard will be included; articles that do not will be excluded. The systematic review software DistillerSR will be used to automate part of the screening process as an adjunct to human reviewers. After the full-text screening, data will be extracted from each study via the categories of study characteristics, patient information, AI methods, intervention, and outcomes. Risk of bias will be scored using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) by two trained independent reviewers. Disagreements at any step will be addressed by a third adjudicator. The study results will include summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve plots as well as pooled sensitivity and specificity of artificial intelligence for detection of any ophthalmic conditions based on imaging modalities compared to the reference standard. Statistics will be calculated in the R statistical software.DiscussionThis study will provide novel insights into the diagnostic accuracy of AI in new domains of ophthalmology that have not been previously studied. The protocol also outlines the use of an AI-based software to assist in article screening, which may serve as a reference for improving the efficiency and accuracy of future large systematic reviews.Trial registrationPROSPERO, CRD42021274441.
| S-EPMC9281030 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLung cancer was the second most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death in 2020. Although artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted diagnostic technologies have shown promise and has been used in clinical practice in recent years, no products related to AI-assisted CT diagnostic technologies for the classification of pulmonary nodules have been approved by the National Medical Products Administration in China. The objective of this article was to systematically review the diagnostic performance of AI-assisted CT diagnostic technology for the classification of pulmonary nodules as benign or malignant and to analyze physicians' perceptions of this technology in China.MethodsAll relevant studies from 6 literature databases were searched and screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were extracted and the study quality was assessed by two reviewers. The study heterogeneity and publication bias were estimated. A questionnaire survey on the perceptions of physicians was conducted in 9 public tertiary hospitals in China. A meta-analysis, meta-regression and univariate logistic model were used in the systematic review and to explore the association of physicians' perceptions with their rate of support for the clinical application of the technology.ResultsTwenty-seven studies with 5,727 pulmonary nodules were finally included in the meta-analysis. We found that the quality of the included studies was generally acceptable and that the pooled sensitivity and specificity of AI-assisted CT diagnostic technology for the classification of pulmonary nodules as benign or malignant were 0.90 and 0.89, respectively. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 70.33. The majority of the surveyed physicians in China perceived "reduced workload for radiologists" and "improved diagnostic efficiency" as the important benefits of this technology. In addition, diagnostic accuracy (including misdiagnosis) and practical experience were significantly associated with whether physicians supported its clinical application.ConclusionsIn the context of lung cancer diagnosis, AI-assisted CT diagnostic technology for the classification of pulmonary nodules as benign or malignant has good diagnostic performance, but its specificity needs to be improved.
| S-EPMC8411165 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEndocytoscopy (EC) is a nuclei and micro-vessels visualization in real-time and can facilitate "optical biopsy" and "virtual histology" of colorectal lesions. This study aimed to investigate the significance of employing artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of endoscopy, specifically in diagnosing colorectal lesions. The research was conducted under the supervision of experienced professionals and trainees.MethodsEMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database, and other potential databases were surveyed for articles related to the EC with AI published before September 2023. RevMan (5.40), Stata (14.0), and R software (4.1.0) were used for statistical assessment. Studies that measured the accuracy of EC using AI for colorectal lesions were included. Two authors independently assessed the selected studies and their extracted data. This included information such as the country, literature, total study population, study design, characteristics of the fundamental study and control groups, sensitivity, number of samples, assay methodology, specificity, true positives or negatives, and false positives or negatives. The diagnostic accuracy of EC by AI was determined by a bivariate random-effects model, avoiding a high heterogeneity effect. The ANOVA model was employed to determine the more effective approach.ResultsA total of 223 studies were reviewed; 8 articles were selected that included 2984 patients (4241 lesions) for systematic review and meta-analysis. AI assessed 4069 lesions; experts diagnosed 3165 and 5014 by trainees. AI demonstrated high accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity levels in detecting colorectal lesions, with values of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90, 0.95) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.73, 0.99). Expert diagnosis was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.94), 0.87 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.93), and trainee diagnosis was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.67, 0.79), 0.72 (95% CI: 0.62, 0.80). With the EC by AI, the AUC from SROC was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93, 0.97), therefore classified as excellent category, expert showed 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93, 0.97), and the trainee had 0.79 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.82). The superior index from the ANOVA model was 4.00 (1.15,5.00), 2.00 (1.15,5.00), and 0.20 (0.20,0.20), respectively. The examiners conducted meta-regression and subgroup analyses to evaluate the presence of heterogeneity. The findings of these investigations suggest that the utilization of NBI technology was correlated with variability in sensitivity and specificity. There was a lack of solid evidence indicating the presence of publishing bias.ConclusionsThe present findings indicate that using AI in EC can potentially enhance the efficiency of diagnosing colorectal abnormalities. As a valuable instrument, it can enhance prognostic outcomes in ordinary EC procedures, exhibiting superior diagnostic accuracy compared to trainee-level endoscopists and demonstrating comparability to expert endoscopists. The research is subject to certain constraints, namely a limited number of clinical investigations and variations in the methodologies used for identification. Consequently, it is imperative to conduct comprehensive and extensive research to enhance the precision of diagnostic procedures.
| S-EPMC10729963 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundArtificial Intelligence (AI) holds considerable promise for diagnostics in the field of gastroenterology. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of AI models compared with the gold standard of experts and histopathology for the diagnosis of various gastrointestinal (GI) luminal pathologies including polyps, neoplasms, and inflammatory bowel disease.MethodsWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, Wiley Cochrane Library, and Web of Science electronic databases to identify studies assessing the diagnostic performance of AI models for GI luminal pathologies. We extracted binary diagnostic accuracy data and constructed contingency tables to derive the outcomes of interest: sensitivity and specificity. We performed a meta-analysis and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves (HSROC). The risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the type of GI luminal disease, AI model, reference standard, and type of data used for analysis. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021288360).FindingsWe included 73 studies, of which 31 were externally validated and provided sufficient information for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The overall sensitivity of AI for detecting GI luminal pathologies was 91.9% (95% CI: 89.0-94.1) and specificity was 91.7% (95% CI: 87.4-94.7). Deep learning models (sensitivity: 89.8%, specificity: 91.9%) and ensemble methods (sensitivity: 95.4%, specificity: 90.9%) were the most commonly used models in the included studies. Majority of studies (n = 56, 76.7%) had a high risk of selection bias while 74% (n = 54) studies were low risk on reference standard and 67% (n = 49) were low risk for flow and timing bias.InterpretationThe review suggests high sensitivity and specificity of AI models for the detection of GI luminal pathologies. There is a need for large, multi-center trials in both high income countries and low- and middle- income countries to assess the performance of these AI models in real clinical settings and its impact on diagnosis and prognosis.Systematic review registration[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=288360], identifier [CRD42021288360].
| S-EPMC9672666 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI)-aided analysis of chest CT expedites the quantification of abnormalities and may facilitate the diagnosis and assessment of the prognosis of subjects with COVID-19.ObjectivesThis study investigates the performance of an AI-aided quantification model in predicting the clinical outcomes of hospitalized subjects with COVID-19 and compares it with radiologists' performance.Subjects and methodsA total of 90 subjects with COVID-19 (men, n = 59 [65.6%]; age, 52.9±16.7 years) were recruited in this cross-sectional study. Quantification of the total and compromised lung parenchyma was performed by two expert radiologists using a volumetric image analysis software and compared against an AI-assisted package consisting of a modified U-Net model for segmenting COVID-19 lesions and an off-the-shelf U-Net model augmented with COVID-19 data for segmenting lung volume. The fraction of compromised lung parenchyma (%CL) was calculated. Based on clinical results, the subjects were divided into two categories: critical (n = 45) and noncritical (n = 45). All admission data were compared between the two groups.ResultsThere was an excellent agreement between the radiologist-obtained and AI-assisted measurements (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.88, P < 0.001). Both the AI-assisted and radiologist-obtained %CLs were significantly higher in the critical subjects (P = 0.009 and 0.02, respectively) than in the noncritical subjects. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis to distinguish the critical subjects, an AI-assisted %CL ≥35% (odds ratio [OR] = 17.0), oxygen saturation level of <88% (OR = 33.6), immunocompromised condition (OR = 8.1), and other comorbidities (OR = 15.2) independently remained as significant variables in the models. Our proposed model obtained an accuracy of 83.9%, a sensitivity of 79.1%, and a specificity of 88.6% in predicting critical outcomes.ConclusionsAI-assisted measurements are similar to quantitative radiologist-obtained measurements in determining lung involvement in COVID-19 subjects.
| S-EPMC10707659 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe use of artificial intelligence (AI) to support the diagnosis of acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) could improve patient outcomes and facilitate accurate tissue and vessel assessment. However, the evidence in published AI studies is inadequate and difficult to interpret which reduces the accountability of the diagnostic results in clinical settings. This study protocol describes a rigorous systematic review of the accuracy of AI in the diagnosis of AIS and detection of large-vessel occlusions (LVOs).Methods and analysisWe will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of AI models for diagnosing AIS and detecting LVOs. We will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols guidelines. Literature searches will be conducted in eight databases. For data screening and extraction, two reviewers will use a modified Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies checklist. We will assess the included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies guidelines. We will conduct a meta-analysis if sufficient data are available. We will use hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves to estimate the summary operating points, including the pooled sensitivity and specificity, with 95% CIs, if pooling is appropriate. Furthermore, if sufficient data are available, we will use Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations profiler software to summarise the main findings of the systematic review, as a summary of results.Ethics and disseminationThere are no ethical considerations associated with this study protocol, as the systematic review focuses on the examination of secondary data. The systematic review results will be used to report on the accuracy, completeness and standard procedures of the included studies. We will disseminate our findings by publishing our analysis in a peer-reviewed journal and, if required, we will communicate with the stakeholders of the studies and bibliographic databases.Prospero registration numberCRD42020179652.
| S-EPMC7949439 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsThe diagnosis of chronic atrophic gastritis (CAG) under normal white-light endoscopy depends on the endoscopist's experience and is not ideal. Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to diagnose diseases with good results. This review aimed to evaluate the accuracy of AI-assisted diagnosis of CAG through a meta-analysis.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive literature search of four databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Studies published by November 21, 2022, on AI diagnosis CAG with endoscopic images or videos were included. We assessed the diagnostic performance of AI using meta-analysis, explored the sources of heterogeneity through subgroup analysis and meta-regression, and compared the accuracy of AI and endoscopists in diagnosing CAG.ResultsEight studies that included a total of 25,216 patients of interest, 84,678 image training set images, and 10,937 test set images/videos were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the sensitivity of AI in identifying CAG was 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88-0.97, I2 = 96.2%), the specificity was 96% (95% CI: 0.88-0.98, I2 = 98.04%), and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96-0.99). The accuracy of AI in diagnosing CAG was significantly higher than that of endoscopists.ConclusionsAI-assisted diagnosis of CAG in endoscopy has high accuracy and clinical diagnostic value.Systematic review registrationhttp://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42023391853.
| S-EPMC10185804 | biostudies-literature