Dataset Information

Pooled diagnostic parameters of artificial intelligence in EUS image analysis of the pancreas: A descriptive quantitative review.

ABSTRACT: EUS is an important diagnostic tool in pancreatic lesions. Performance of single-center and/or single study artificial intelligence (AI) in the analysis of EUS-images of pancreatic lesions has been reported. The aim of this study was to quantitatively study the pooled rates of diagnostic performance of AI in EUS image analysis of pancreas using rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis methodology. Multiple databases were searched (from inception to December 2020) and studies that reported on the performance of AI in EUS analysis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma were selected. The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled rates. In cases where multiple 2 × 2 contingency tables were provided for different thresholds, we assumed the data tables as independent from each other. Heterogeneity was assessed by I²% and 95% prediction intervals. Eleven studies were analyzed. The pooled overall accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 86% (95% confidence interval [82.8-88.6]), 90.4% (88.1-92.3), 84% (79.3-87.8), 90.2% (87.4-92.3) and 89.8% (86-92.7), respectively. On subgroup analysis, the corresponding pooled parameters in studies that used neural networks were 85.5% (80-89.8), 91.8% (87.8-94.6), 84.6% (73-91.7), 87.4% (82-91.3), and 91.4% (83.7-95.6)], respectively. Based on our meta-analysis, AI seems to perform well in the EUS-image analysis of pancreatic lesions.

SUBMITTER: Mohan BP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9258019 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May-Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pooled diagnostic parameters of artificial intelligence in EUS image analysis of the pancreas: A descriptive quantitative review.

Mohan Babu P BP Facciorusso Antonio A Khan Shahab R SR Madhu Deepak D Kassab Lena L LL Ponnada Suresh S Chandan Saurabh S Crino Stefano F SF Kochhar Gursimran S GS Adler Douglas G DG Wallace Michael B MB

Endoscopic ultrasound 20220501 3

EUS is an important diagnostic tool in pancreatic lesions. Performance of single-center and/or single study artificial intelligence (AI) in the analysis of EUS-images of pancreatic lesions has been reported. The aim of this study was to quantitatively study the pooled rates of diagnostic performance of AI in EUS image analysis of pancreas using rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis methodology. Multiple databases were searched (from inception to December 2020) and studies that reported on ...[more]

PMID: 35313417

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND. Potential approaches for abbreviated knee MRI, including prospective acceleration with deep learning, have achieved limited clinical implementation. OBJECTIVE. The objective of this study was to evaluate the interreader agreement between conventional knee MRI and a 5-minute 3D quantitative double-echo steady-state (qDESS) sequence with automatic T2 mapping and deep learning super-resolutionaugmentation and to compare the diagnostic performance of the two methods regarding findings from arthroscopic surgery. METHODS. Fifty-one patients with knee pain underwent knee MRI that included an additional 3D qDESS sequence with automatic T2 mapping. Fourier interpolation was followed by prospective deep learning super resolution to enhance qDESS slice resolution twofold. A musculoskeletal radiologist and a radiology resident performed independent retrospective evaluations of articular cartilage, menisci, ligaments, bones, extensor mechanism, and synovium using conventional MRI. Following a 2-month washout period, readers reviewed qDESS images alone followed by qDESS with the automatic T2 maps. Interreader agreement between conventional MRI and qDESS was computed using percentage agreement and Cohen kappa. The sensitivity and specificity of conventional MRI, qDESS alone, and qDESS plus T2 mapping were compared with arthroscopic findings using exact McNemar tests. RESULTS. Conventional MRI and qDESS showed 92% agreement in evaluating all tissues. Kappa was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.76-0.81) across all imaging findings. In 43 patients who underwent arthroscopy, sensitivity and specificity were not significantly different (p = .23 to > .99) between conventional MRI (sensitivity, 58-93%; specificity, 27-87%) and qDESS alone (sensitivity, 54-90%; specificity, 23-91%) for cartilage, menisci, ligaments, and synovium. For grade 1 cartilage lesions, sensitivity and specificity were 33% and 56%, respectively, for conventional MRI; 23% and 53% for qDESS (p = .81); and 46% and 39% for qDESS with T2 mapping (p = .80). For grade 2A lesions, values were 27% and 53% for conventional MRI, 26% and 52% for qDESS (p = .02), and 58% and 40% for qDESS with T2 mapping (p < .001). CONCLUSION. The qDESS method prospectively augmented with deep learning showed strong interreader agreement with conventional knee MRI and near-equivalent diagnostic performance regarding arthroscopy. The ability of qDESS to automatically generate T2 maps increases sensitivity for cartilage abnormalities. CLINICAL IMPACT. Using prospective artificial intelligence to enhance qDESS image quality may facilitate an abbreviated knee MRI protocol while generating quantitative T2 maps.

Project description:The development of artificial intelligence (AI) in dentistry requires large and well-annotated datasets. However, the availability of public dental imaging datasets remains unclear. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of all publicly available dental imaging datasets to address this gap and support AI development. This observational study searched all publicly available dataset resources (academic databases, preprints, and AI challenges), focusing on datasets/articles from 2020 to 2023, with PubMed searches extending back to 2011. We comprehensively searched for dental AI datasets containing images (intraoral photos, scans, radiographs, etc.) using relevant keywords. We included datasets of >50 images obtained from publicly available sources. We extracted dataset characteristics, patient demographics, country of origin, dataset size, ethical clearance, image details, FAIRness metrics, and metadata completeness. We screened 131,028 records and extracted 16 unique dental imaging datasets. The datasets were obtained from Kaggle (18.8%), GitHub, Google, Mendeley, PubMed, Zenodo (each 12.5%), Grand-Challenge, OSF, and arXiv (each 6.25%). The primary focus was tooth segmentation (62.5%) and labeling (56.2%). Panoramic radiography was the most common imaging modality (58.8%). Of the 13 countries, China contributed the most images (2,413). Of the datasets, 75% contained annotations, whereas the methods used to establish labels were often unclear and inconsistent. Only 31.2% of the datasets reported ethical approval, and 56.25% did not specify a license. Most data were obtained from dental clinics (50%). Intraoral radiographs had the highest findability score in the FAIR assessment, whereas cone-beam computed tomography datasets scored the lowest in all categories. These findings revealed a scarcity of publicly available imaging dental data and inconsistent metadata reporting. To promote the development of robust, equitable, and generalizable AI tools for dental diagnostics, treatment, and research, efforts are needed to address data scarcity, increase diversity, mandate metadata completeness, and ensure FAIRness in AI dental imaging research.

Project description:Some research has already reported the diagnostic value of artificial intelligence (AI) in different endoscopy outcomes. However, the evidence is confusing and of varying quality. This review aimed to comprehensively evaluate the credibility of the evidence of AI's diagnostic accuracy in endoscopy. Before the study began, the protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023483073). First, 2 researchers searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library using comprehensive search terms. Then, researchers screened the articles and extracted information. We used A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) to evaluate the quality of the articles. When there were multiple studies aiming at the same result, we chose the study with higher-quality evaluations for further analysis. To ensure the reliability of the conclusions, we recalculated each outcome. Finally, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the credibility of the outcomes. A total of 21 studies were included for analysis. Through AMSTAR2, it was found that 8 research methodologies were of moderate quality, while other studies were regarded as having low or critically low quality. The sensitivity and specificity of 17 different outcomes were analyzed. There were 4 studies on esophagus, 4 studies on stomach, and 4 studies on colorectal regions. Two studies were associated with capsule endoscopy, two were related to laryngoscopy, and one was related to ultrasonic endoscopy. In terms of sensitivity, gastroesophageal reflux disease had the highest accuracy rate, reaching 97%, while the invasion depth of colon neoplasia, with 71%, had the lowest accuracy rate. On the other hand, the specificity of colorectal cancer was the highest, reaching 98%, while the gastrointestinal stromal tumor, with only 80%, had the lowest specificity. The GRADE evaluation suggested that the reliability of most outcomes was low or very low. AI proved valuabe in endoscopic diagnoses, especially in esophageal and colorectal diseases. These findings provide a theoretical basis for developing and evaluating AI-assisted systems, which are aimed at assisting endoscopists in carrying out examinations, leading to improved patient health outcomes. However, further high-quality research is needed in the future to fully validate AI's effectiveness.

Dataset Information

Pooled diagnostic parameters of artificial intelligence in EUS image analysis of the pancreas: A descriptive quantitative review.

Publications

Pooled diagnostic parameters of artificial intelligence in EUS image analysis of the pancreas: A descriptive quantitative review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets