MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.08.023

Медицинская библиотека · World neurosurgery · 2023

Traditional Machine Learning Methods versus Deep Learning for Meningioma Classification, Grading, Outcome Prediction, and Segmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Maniar Krish M, Lassarén Philipp, Rana Aakanksha, Yao Yuxin, Tewarie Ishaan A, Gerstl Jakob V E, Recio Blanco Camila M, Power Liam H, Mammi Marco, Mattie Heather, Smith Timothy R, Mekary Rania A

МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

Meningiomas are common intracranial tumors. Machine learning (ML) algorithms are emerging to improve accuracy in 4 primary domains: classification, grading, outcome prediction, and segmentation. Such algorithms include both traditional approaches that rely on hand-crafted features and deep learning (DL) techniques that utilize automatic feature extraction. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of published traditional ML versus DL algorithms in classification, grading, outcome prediction, and segmentation of meningiomas.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Major databases were searched through September 2021 for publications evaluating traditional ML versus DL models on meningioma management. Performance measures including pooled sensitivity, specificity, F1-score, area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+, LR-) along with their respective 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were derived using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Five hundred thirty-four records were screened, and 43 articles were included, regarding classification (3 articles), grading (29), outcome prediction (7), and segmentation (6) of meningiomas. Of the 29 studies that reported on grading, 10 could be meta-analyzed with 2 DL models (sensitivity 0.89, 95% CI: 0.74-0.96; specificity 0.91, 95% CI: 0.45-0.99; LR+ 10.1, 95% CI: 1.33-137; LR- 0.12, 95% CI: 0.04-0.59) and 8 traditional ML (sensitivity 0.74, 95% CI: 0.62-0.83; specificity 0.93, 95% CI: 0.79-0.98; LR+ 10.5, 95% CI: 2.91-39.5; and LR- 0.28, 95% CI: 0.17-0.49). The insufficient performance metrics reported precluded further statistical analysis of other performance metrics.

CONCLUSIONS

ML on meningiomas is mostly carried out with traditional methods. For meningioma grading, traditional ML methods generally had a higher LR+, while DL models a lower LR-.

Для цитирования: Maniar Krish M, Lassarén Philipp, Rana Aakanksha, Yao Yuxin, Tewarie Ishaan A, Gerstl Jakob V E, Recio Blanco Camila M, Power Liam H, Mammi Marco, Mattie Heather, Smith Timothy R, Mekary Rania A. Traditional Machine Learning Methods versus Deep Learning for Meningioma Classification, Grading, Outcome Prediction, and Segmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. World neurosurgery. 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.08.023.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.