Accuracy of machine learning models for pre-diagnosis and diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in contrast-CT images: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Geraldo Lucas Lopes Costa, Guido Tasca Petroski, Luis Guilherme Machado, Bruno Eulalio Santos, Fernanda de Oliveira Ramos, Leo Max Feuerschuette Neto, Graziela De Luca Canto
{"title":"Accuracy of machine learning models for pre-diagnosis and diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in contrast-CT images: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Geraldo Lucas Lopes Costa, Guido Tasca Petroski, Luis Guilherme Machado, Bruno Eulalio Santos, Fernanda de Oliveira Ramos, Leo Max Feuerschuette Neto, Graziela De Luca Canto","doi":"10.1007/s00261-024-04771-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the diagnostic ability and methodological quality of ML models in detecting Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in Contrast CT images.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Included studies assessed adults diagnosed with PDAC, confirmed by histopathology. Metrics of tests were interpreted by ML algorithms. Studies provided data on sensitivity and specificity. Studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria, segmentation-focused studies, multiple classifiers or non-diagnostic studies were excluded. PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase were searched without restrictions. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2, methodological quality was evaluated using Radiomics Quality Score (RQS) and a Checklist for AI in Medical Imaging (CLAIM). Bivariate random-effects models were used for meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity, I<sup>2</sup> values and subgroup analysis used to assess heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine studies were included and 12,788 participants were evaluated, of which 3,997 were included in the meta-analysis. AI models based on CT scans showed an accuracy of 88.7% (IC 95%, 87.7%-89.7%), sensitivity of 87.9% (95% CI, 82.9%-91.6%), and specificity of 92.2% (95% CI, 86.8%-95.5%). The average score of six radiomics studies was 17.83 RQS points. Nine ML methods had an average CLAIM score of 30.55 points.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study is the first to quantitatively interpret various independent research, offering insights for clinical application. Despite favorable sensitivity and specificity results, the studies were of low quality, limiting definitive conclusions. Further research is necessary to validate these models before widespread adoption.</p>","PeriodicalId":7126,"journal":{"name":"Abdominal Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Abdominal Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-024-04771-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic ability and methodological quality of ML models in detecting Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in Contrast CT images.

Method: Included studies assessed adults diagnosed with PDAC, confirmed by histopathology. Metrics of tests were interpreted by ML algorithms. Studies provided data on sensitivity and specificity. Studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria, segmentation-focused studies, multiple classifiers or non-diagnostic studies were excluded. PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase were searched without restrictions. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2, methodological quality was evaluated using Radiomics Quality Score (RQS) and a Checklist for AI in Medical Imaging (CLAIM). Bivariate random-effects models were used for meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity, I2 values and subgroup analysis used to assess heterogeneity.

Results: Nine studies were included and 12,788 participants were evaluated, of which 3,997 were included in the meta-analysis. AI models based on CT scans showed an accuracy of 88.7% (IC 95%, 87.7%-89.7%), sensitivity of 87.9% (95% CI, 82.9%-91.6%), and specificity of 92.2% (95% CI, 86.8%-95.5%). The average score of six radiomics studies was 17.83 RQS points. Nine ML methods had an average CLAIM score of 30.55 points.

Conclusions: Our study is the first to quantitatively interpret various independent research, offering insights for clinical application. Despite favorable sensitivity and specificity results, the studies were of low quality, limiting definitive conclusions. Further research is necessary to validate these models before widespread adoption.

机器学习模型在对比ct图像中预诊断和诊断胰腺导管腺癌的准确性:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:评价ML模型对胰腺导管腺癌(PDAC)的CT造影诊断能力和方法学质量。方法:纳入研究评估诊断为PDAC的成人,经组织病理学证实。测试指标由ML算法解释。研究提供了敏感性和特异性的数据。不符合纳入标准的研究、以分段为重点的研究、多分类器或非诊断性研究被排除在外。PubMed、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials和Embase均无限制检索。使用QUADAS-2评估偏倚风险,使用放射组学质量评分(RQS)和医学影像学人工智能检查表(CLAIM)评估方法学质量。双变量随机效应模型用于敏感性和特异性的meta分析,I2值和亚组分析用于评估异质性。结果:纳入9项研究,评估了12788名参与者,其中3997名纳入meta分析。基于CT扫描的AI模型准确率为88.7% (IC 95%, 87.7% ~ 89.7%),灵敏度为87.9% (95% CI, 82.9% ~ 91.6%),特异性为92.2% (95% CI, 86.8% ~ 95.5%)。6项放射组学研究的平均得分为17.83 RQS分。9种ML方法的平均CLAIM评分为30.55分。结论:我们的研究首次对各种独立研究进行了定量解读,为临床应用提供了见解。尽管有良好的敏感性和特异性结果,但研究质量低,限制了明确的结论。在广泛采用之前,需要进一步的研究来验证这些模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Abdominal Radiology
Abdominal Radiology Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
334
期刊介绍: Abdominal Radiology seeks to meet the professional needs of the abdominal radiologist by publishing clinically pertinent original, review and practice related articles on the gastrointestinal and genitourinary tracts and abdominal interventional and radiologic procedures. Case reports are generally not accepted unless they are the first report of a new disease or condition, or part of a special solicited section. Reasons to Publish Your Article in Abdominal Radiology: · Official journal of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) · Published in Cooperation with: European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) Asian Society of Abdominal Radiology (ASAR) · Efficient handling and Expeditious review · Author feedback is provided in a mentoring style · Global readership · Readers can earn CME credits
×
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