The quality and accuracy of radiomics model in diagnosing osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Jianan Chen, Song Liu, Youxi Lin, Wenjun Hu, Huihong Shi, Nianchun Liao, Miaomiao Zhou, Wenjie Gao, Yanbo Chen, Peijie Shi
{"title":"The quality and accuracy of radiomics model in diagnosing osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Jianan Chen, Song Liu, Youxi Lin, Wenjun Hu, Huihong Shi, Nianchun Liao, Miaomiao Zhou, Wenjie Gao, Yanbo Chen, Peijie Shi","doi":"10.1016/j.acra.2024.11.065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale and objectives: </strong>The purpose of this study is to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of current radiomics models for diagnosing osteoporosis, as well as to assess the methodology and reporting quality of these radiomics studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>According to PRISMA guidelines, four databases including MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched systematically to select relevant studies published before July 18, 2024. The articles that used radiomics models for diagnosing osteoporosis were considered eligible. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool and radiomics quality score (RQS) were used to assess the quality of included studies. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), sensitivity, specificity, area under the summary receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated to estimated diagnostic efficiency of pooled model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 25 studies were included, of which 24 provided usable data that were utilized for the meta-analysis, including 1553 patients with osteoporosis and 2200 patients without osteoporosis. The mean RQS score of included studies was 11.48 ± 4.92, with an adherence rate of 31.89%. The pooled DOR, sensitivity and specificity for model to diagnose osteoporosis were 81.72 (95% CI: 51.08 - 130.73), 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.93) and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.93), respectively. The AUC was 0.96, indicating a high diagnostic capability. Subgroup analysis revealed that the use of different imaging modalities to construct radiomics models might be one source of heterogeneity. Radiomics models built using CT images and deep learning algorithms demonstrated higher diagnostic accuracy for osteoporosis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Radiomics models for the diagnosis of osteoporosis have high diagnostic efficacy. In the future, radiomics models for diagnosing osteoporosis will be an efficient instrument to assist clinical doctors in screening osteoporosis patients. However, relevant guidelines should be followed strictly to improve the quality of radiomics studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":50928,"journal":{"name":"Academic Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2024.11.065","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale and objectives: The purpose of this study is to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of current radiomics models for diagnosing osteoporosis, as well as to assess the methodology and reporting quality of these radiomics studies.

Methods: According to PRISMA guidelines, four databases including MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched systematically to select relevant studies published before July 18, 2024. The articles that used radiomics models for diagnosing osteoporosis were considered eligible. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool and radiomics quality score (RQS) were used to assess the quality of included studies. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), sensitivity, specificity, area under the summary receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated to estimated diagnostic efficiency of pooled model.

Results: A total of 25 studies were included, of which 24 provided usable data that were utilized for the meta-analysis, including 1553 patients with osteoporosis and 2200 patients without osteoporosis. The mean RQS score of included studies was 11.48 ± 4.92, with an adherence rate of 31.89%. The pooled DOR, sensitivity and specificity for model to diagnose osteoporosis were 81.72 (95% CI: 51.08 - 130.73), 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.93) and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.93), respectively. The AUC was 0.96, indicating a high diagnostic capability. Subgroup analysis revealed that the use of different imaging modalities to construct radiomics models might be one source of heterogeneity. Radiomics models built using CT images and deep learning algorithms demonstrated higher diagnostic accuracy for osteoporosis.

Conclusion: Radiomics models for the diagnosis of osteoporosis have high diagnostic efficacy. In the future, radiomics models for diagnosing osteoporosis will be an efficient instrument to assist clinical doctors in screening osteoporosis patients. However, relevant guidelines should be followed strictly to improve the quality of radiomics studies.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Academic Radiology
Academic Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
10.40%
发文量
432
审稿时长
18 days
期刊介绍: Academic Radiology publishes original reports of clinical and laboratory investigations in diagnostic imaging, the diagnostic use of radioactive isotopes, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital subtraction angiography, image-guided interventions and related techniques. It also includes brief technical reports describing original observations, techniques, and instrumental developments; state-of-the-art reports on clinical issues, new technology and other topics of current medical importance; meta-analyses; scientific studies and opinions on radiologic education; and letters to the Editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信