Cameron J. Leong, Sohat Sharma, Jayant Seth, Simon W. Rabkin
{"title":"人工智能简化了 Brugada 综合征的诊断和预后评估:系统综述和荟萃分析","authors":"Cameron J. Leong, Sohat Sharma, Jayant Seth, Simon W. Rabkin","doi":"10.20517/chatmed.2024.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the diagnostic and prognostic utility of artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) algorithms in Brugada Syndrome (BrS).\n Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases were searched for relevant articles. Abstract and title screening, full-text review, and data extraction were conducted independently by two of the authors. Conflicts were resolved via discussion among authors. A risk-of-bias assessment was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool for diagnostic studies and the PROBAST tool for prognostic studies. Forest plots and the summary area under the receiver operating characteristic (SAUROC) curve were done in R.\n Results: A total of 12 papers were included in our study. Among the best-performing diagnostic algorithms from each study, the sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0.80 to 0.89 and 0.74 to 0.97, respectively. In overall studies, sensitivity was 0.845 ± 0.014 and specificity was 0.892 ± 0.062 using a random effects model. A pooled analysis of the summary area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (SAUROC) was 0.77 for diagnostic studies. Prognostic studies showed good performance as well, with the AUC of the best-performing prognostic algorithms ranging from 0.71 to 0.90.\n Conclusions: Overall, AI/ML algorithms had high diagnostic and prognostic accuracy. These results highlight the potential of AI/ML algorithms for the diagnosis and prognosis of BrS and permit a choice of the best-performing ML algorithms.","PeriodicalId":72693,"journal":{"name":"Connected health and telemedicine","volume":"81 19","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Artificial intelligence streamlines diagnosis and assessment of prognosis in Brugada syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Cameron J. Leong, Sohat Sharma, Jayant Seth, Simon W. Rabkin\",\"doi\":\"10.20517/chatmed.2024.03\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the diagnostic and prognostic utility of artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) algorithms in Brugada Syndrome (BrS).\\n Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases were searched for relevant articles. Abstract and title screening, full-text review, and data extraction were conducted independently by two of the authors. Conflicts were resolved via discussion among authors. A risk-of-bias assessment was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool for diagnostic studies and the PROBAST tool for prognostic studies. Forest plots and the summary area under the receiver operating characteristic (SAUROC) curve were done in R.\\n Results: A total of 12 papers were included in our study. Among the best-performing diagnostic algorithms from each study, the sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0.80 to 0.89 and 0.74 to 0.97, respectively. In overall studies, sensitivity was 0.845 ± 0.014 and specificity was 0.892 ± 0.062 using a random effects model. A pooled analysis of the summary area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (SAUROC) was 0.77 for diagnostic studies. Prognostic studies showed good performance as well, with the AUC of the best-performing prognostic algorithms ranging from 0.71 to 0.90.\\n Conclusions: Overall, AI/ML algorithms had high diagnostic and prognostic accuracy. These results highlight the potential of AI/ML algorithms for the diagnosis and prognosis of BrS and permit a choice of the best-performing ML algorithms.\",\"PeriodicalId\":72693,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Connected health and telemedicine\",\"volume\":\"81 19\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Connected health and telemedicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20517/chatmed.2024.03\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Connected health and telemedicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20517/chatmed.2024.03","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在确定人工智能/机器学习(AI/ML)算法在布鲁格达综合征(BrS)中的诊断和预后效用。方法:根据《系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目》(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses,PRISMA)指南对文献进行系统综述和荟萃分析。在 MEDLINE、EMBASE、SCOPUS 和 WEB OF SCIENCE 数据库中检索了相关文章。摘要和标题筛选、全文审阅和数据提取由两位作者独立完成。作者之间的冲突通过讨论解决。诊断性研究使用 QUADAS-2 工具进行偏倚风险评估,预后性研究使用 PROBAST 工具进行偏倚风险评估。结果:我们的研究共纳入了 12 篇论文。在每项研究中表现最佳的诊断算法中,灵敏度和特异性分别为 0.80 至 0.89 和 0.74 至 0.97。采用随机效应模型,总体研究的灵敏度为 0.845 ± 0.014,特异度为 0.892 ± 0.062。诊断性研究的接收者操作特征曲线下的汇总面积(SAUROC)汇总分析为 0.77。预后研究也表现良好,表现最好的预后算法的AUC为0.71至0.90。结论:总体而言,人工智能/ML 算法具有很高的诊断和预后准确性。这些结果凸显了人工智能/ML 算法在 BrS 诊断和预后方面的潜力,并允许选择表现最佳的 ML 算法。
Artificial intelligence streamlines diagnosis and assessment of prognosis in Brugada syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Aim: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the diagnostic and prognostic utility of artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) algorithms in Brugada Syndrome (BrS).
Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases were searched for relevant articles. Abstract and title screening, full-text review, and data extraction were conducted independently by two of the authors. Conflicts were resolved via discussion among authors. A risk-of-bias assessment was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool for diagnostic studies and the PROBAST tool for prognostic studies. Forest plots and the summary area under the receiver operating characteristic (SAUROC) curve were done in R.
Results: A total of 12 papers were included in our study. Among the best-performing diagnostic algorithms from each study, the sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0.80 to 0.89 and 0.74 to 0.97, respectively. In overall studies, sensitivity was 0.845 ± 0.014 and specificity was 0.892 ± 0.062 using a random effects model. A pooled analysis of the summary area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (SAUROC) was 0.77 for diagnostic studies. Prognostic studies showed good performance as well, with the AUC of the best-performing prognostic algorithms ranging from 0.71 to 0.90.
Conclusions: Overall, AI/ML algorithms had high diagnostic and prognostic accuracy. These results highlight the potential of AI/ML algorithms for the diagnosis and prognosis of BrS and permit a choice of the best-performing ML algorithms.