European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2023
Deep learning for pneumothorax diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
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.
Sugibayashi Takahiro, Walston Shannon L, Matsumoto Toshimasa, Mitsuyama Yasuhito, Miki Yukio, Ueda Daiju
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Deep learning (DL), a subset of artificial intelligence (AI), has been applied to pneumothorax diagnosis to aid physician diagnosis, but no meta-analysis has been performed.
METHODS: A search of multiple electronic databases through September 2022 was performed to identify studies that applied DL for pneumothorax diagnosis using imaging. Meta-analysis via a hierarchical model to calculate the summary area under the curve (AUC) and pooled sensitivity and specificity for both DL and physicians was performed. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Prediction Model Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.
RESULTS: In 56 of the 63 primary studies, pneumothorax was identified from chest radiography. The total AUC was 0.97 (95% CI 0.96-0.98) for both DL and physicians. The total pooled sensitivity was 84% (95% CI 79-89%) for DL and 85% (95% CI 73-92%) for physicians and the pooled specificity was 96% (95% CI 94-98%) for DL and 98% (95% CI 95-99%) for physicians. More than half of the original studies (57%) had a high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS: Our review found the diagnostic performance of DL models was similar to that of physicians, although the majority of studies had a high risk of bias. Further pneumothorax AI research is needed.
METHODS: A search of multiple electronic databases through September 2022 was performed to identify studies that applied DL for pneumothorax diagnosis using imaging. Meta-analysis via a hierarchical model to calculate the summary area under the curve (AUC) and pooled sensitivity and specificity for both DL and physicians was performed. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Prediction Model Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.
RESULTS: In 56 of the 63 primary studies, pneumothorax was identified from chest radiography. The total AUC was 0.97 (95% CI 0.96-0.98) for both DL and physicians. The total pooled sensitivity was 84% (95% CI 79-89%) for DL and 85% (95% CI 73-92%) for physicians and the pooled specificity was 96% (95% CI 94-98%) for DL and 98% (95% CI 95-99%) for physicians. More than half of the original studies (57%) had a high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS: Our review found the diagnostic performance of DL models was similar to that of physicians, although the majority of studies had a high risk of bias. Further pneumothorax AI research is needed.