British journal of cancer · 2021
Artificial Intelligence-based methods in head and neck cancer diagnosis: an overview.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАОбзорНазвание 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.
Mahmood Hanya, Shaban Muhammad, Rajpoot Nasir, Khurram Syed A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This paper reviews recent literature employing Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML) methods for diagnostic evaluation of head and neck cancers (HNC) using automated image analysis.
METHODS: Electronic database searches using MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE and Google Scholar were conducted to retrieve articles using AI/ML for diagnostic evaluation of HNC (2009-2020). No restrictions were placed on the AI/ML method or imaging modality used.
RESULTS: In total, 32 articles were identified. HNC sites included oral cavity (n = 16), nasopharynx (n = 3), oropharynx (n = 3), larynx (n = 2), salivary glands (n = 2), sinonasal (n = 1) and in five studies multiple sites were studied. Imaging modalities included histological (n = 9), radiological (n = 8), hyperspectral (n = 6), endoscopic/clinical (n = 5), infrared thermal (n = 1) and optical (n = 1). Clinicopathologic/genomic data were used in two studies. Traditional ML methods were employed in 22 studies (69%), deep learning (DL) in eight studies (25%) and a combination of these methods in two studies (6%).
CONCLUSIONS: There is an increasing volume of studies exploring the role of AI/ML to aid HNC detection using a range of imaging modalities. These methods can achieve high degrees of accuracy that can exceed the abilities of human judgement in making data predictions. Large-scale multi-centric prospective studies are required to aid deployment into clinical practice.
METHODS: Electronic database searches using MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE and Google Scholar were conducted to retrieve articles using AI/ML for diagnostic evaluation of HNC (2009-2020). No restrictions were placed on the AI/ML method or imaging modality used.
RESULTS: In total, 32 articles were identified. HNC sites included oral cavity (n = 16), nasopharynx (n = 3), oropharynx (n = 3), larynx (n = 2), salivary glands (n = 2), sinonasal (n = 1) and in five studies multiple sites were studied. Imaging modalities included histological (n = 9), radiological (n = 8), hyperspectral (n = 6), endoscopic/clinical (n = 5), infrared thermal (n = 1) and optical (n = 1). Clinicopathologic/genomic data were used in two studies. Traditional ML methods were employed in 22 studies (69%), deep learning (DL) in eight studies (25%) and a combination of these methods in two studies (6%).
CONCLUSIONS: There is an increasing volume of studies exploring the role of AI/ML to aid HNC detection using a range of imaging modalities. These methods can achieve high degrees of accuracy that can exceed the abilities of human judgement in making data predictions. Large-scale multi-centric prospective studies are required to aid deployment into clinical practice.