Dataset Information

Artificial intelligence to classify ear disease from otoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To summarise the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) computer vision algorithms to classify ear disease from otoscopy.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

Using the PRISMA guidelines, nine online databases were searched for articles that used AI computer vision algorithms developed from various methods (convolutional neural networks, artificial neural networks, support vector machines, decision trees and k-nearest neighbours) to classify otoscopic images. Diagnostic classes of interest: normal tympanic membrane, acute otitis media (AOM), otitis media with effusion (OME), chronic otitis media (COM) with or without perforation, cholesteatoma and canal obstruction.

Main outcome measures

Accuracy to correctly classify otoscopic images compared to otolaryngologists (ground truth). The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Version 2 tool was used to assess the quality of methodology and risk of bias.

Results

Thirty-nine articles were included. Algorithms achieved 90.7% (95%CI: 90.1-91.3%) accuracy to difference between normal or abnormal otoscopy images in 14 studies. The most common multiclassification algorithm (3 or more diagnostic classes) achieved 97.6% (95%CI: 97.3-97.9%) accuracy to differentiate between normal, AOM and OME in three studies. AI algorithms outperformed human assessors to classify otoscopy images achieving 93.4% (95%CI: 90.5-96.4%) versus 73.2% (95%CI: 67.9-78.5%) accuracy in three studies. Convolutional neural networks achieved the highest accuracy compared to other classification methods.

Conclusion

AI can classify ear disease from otoscopy. A concerted effort is required to establish a comprehensive and reliable otoscopy database for algorithm training. An AI-supported otoscopy system may assist health care workers, trainees and primary care practitioners with less otology experience identify ear disease.

SUBMITTER: Habib AR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9310803 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) has been extensively used in a range of medical fields to promote therapeutic development. The development of diverse AI techniques has also contributed to early detections, disease diagnoses, and referral management. However, concerns about the value of advanced AI in disease diagnosis have been raised by health care professionals, medical service providers, and health policy decision makers.ObjectiveThis review aimed to systematically examine the literature, in particular, focusing on the performance comparison between advanced AI and human clinicians to provide an up-to-date summary regarding the extent of the application of AI to disease diagnoses. By doing so, this review discussed the relationship between the current advanced AI development and clinicians with respect to disease diagnosis and thus therapeutic development in the long run.MethodsWe systematically searched articles published between January 2000 and March 2019 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis in the following databases: Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. According to the preset inclusion and exclusion criteria, only articles comparing the medical performance between advanced AI and human experts were considered.ResultsA total of 9 articles were identified. A convolutional neural network was the commonly applied advanced AI technology. Owing to the variation in medical fields, there is a distinction between individual studies in terms of classification, labeling, training process, dataset size, and algorithm validation of AI. Performance indices reported in articles included diagnostic accuracy, weighted errors, false-positive rate, sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The results showed that the performance of AI was at par with that of clinicians and exceeded that of clinicians with less experience.ConclusionsCurrent AI development has a diagnostic performance that is comparable with medical experts, especially in image recognition-related fields. Further studies can be extended to other types of medical imaging such as magnetic resonance imaging and other medical practices unrelated to images. With the continued development of AI-assisted technologies, the clinical implications underpinned by clinicians' experience and guided by patient-centered health care principle should be constantly considered in future AI-related and other technology-based medical research.

Project description:BackgroundThe gold standard for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is liver biopsy. Various noninvasive modalities, e.g., ultrasonography, elastography and clinical predictive scores, have been used as alternatives to liver biopsy, with limited performance. Recently, artificial intelligence (AI) models have been developed and integrated into noninvasive diagnostic tools to improve their performance.MethodsWe systematically searched for studies on AI-assisted diagnosis of liver fibrosis and NAFLD on MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using a random effects model. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve and the area under the curve was generated to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the AI-assisted system. Subgroup analyses by diagnostic modalities, population and AI classifiers were performed.ResultsWe included 19 studies reporting the performances of AI-assisted ultrasonography, elastrography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and clinical parameters for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis and steatosis. For the diagnosis of liver fibrosis, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and DOR were 0.78 (0.71-0.85), 0.89 (0.81-0.94), 0.72 (0.58-0.83), 0.92 (0.88-0.94) and 31.58 (11.84-84.25), respectively, for cirrhosis; 0.86 (0.80-0.90), 0.87 (0.80-0.92), 0.85 (0.75-0.91), 0.88 (0.82-0.92) and 37.79 (16.01-89.19), respectively; for advanced fibrosis; and 0.86 (0.78-0.92), 0.81 (0.77-0.84), 0.88 (0.80-0.93), 0.77 (0.58-0.89) and 26.79 (14.47-49.62), respectively, for significant fibrosis. Subgroup analyses showed significant differences in performance for the diagnosis of fibrosis among different modalities. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and DOR were 0.97 (0.76-1.00), 0.91 (0.78-0.97), 0.95 (0.87-0.98), 0.93 (0.80-0.98) and 191.52 (38.82-944.81), respectively, for the diagnosis of liver steatosis.ConclusionsAI-assisted systems have promising potential for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis and NAFLD. Validations of their performances are warranted before implementing these AI-assisted systems in clinical practice.Trial registrationThe protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020183295).

Project description:BackgroundThe global prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) continues to rise. Non-invasive diagnostic modalities including ultrasonography and clinical scoring systems have been proposed as alternatives to liver biopsy but with limited performance. Artificial intelligence (AI) is currently being integrated with conventional diagnostic methods in the hopes of performance improvements. We aimed to estimate the performance of AI-assisted systems for diagnosing NAFLD, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and liver fibrosis.MethodsA systematic review was performed to identify studies integrating AI in the diagnosis of NAFLD, NASH, and liver fibrosis. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated.ResultsTwenty-five studies were included in the systematic review. Meta-analysis of 13 studies showed that AI significantly improved the diagnosis of NAFLD, NASH and liver fibrosis. AI-assisted ultrasonography had excellent performance for diagnosing NAFLD, with a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV of 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91-0.99), 0.98 (95% CI: 0.89-1.00), 0.98 (95% CI: 0.93-1.00), and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.88-0.98), respectively. The performance of AI-assisted ultrasonography was better than AI-assisted clinical data sets for the identification of NAFLD, which provided a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.66-0.82), 0.82 (95% CI: 0.74-0.88), 0.75 (95% CI: 0.60-0.86), and 0.82 (0.74-0.87), respectively. The area under the curves were 0.98 and 0.85 for AI-assisted ultrasonography and AI-assisted clinical data sets, respectively. AI-integrated clinical data sets had a pooled sensitivity, specificity of 0.80 (95%CI: 0.75-0.85), 0.69 (95%CI: 0.53-0.82) for identifying NASH, as well as 0.99-1.00 and 0.76-1.00 for diagnosing liver fibrosis stage F1-F4, respectively.ConclusionAI-supported systems provide promising performance improvements for diagnosing NAFLD, NASH, and identifying liver fibrosis among NAFLD patients. Prospective trials with direct comparisons between AI-assisted modalities and conventional methods are warranted before real-world implementation.Protocol registrationPROSPERO (CRD42021230391).