Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Automated Identification of Multiple Findings on Brain MRI for Improving Scan Acquisition and Interpretation Workflows: A Systematic Review

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

DOI

  1. Comparison of Spectral-Domain OCT versus Swept-Source OCT for the Detection of Deep Optic Disc Drusen

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Assessing Putative Markers of Colorectal Cancer Stem Cells: From Colonoscopy to Gene Expression Profiling

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Phantom Study on the Robustness of MR Radiomics Features: Comparing the Applicability of 3D Printed and Biological Phantoms

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. Effects of Semaglutide on Stroke Subtypes in Type 2 Diabetes: Post Hoc Analysis of the Randomized SUSTAIN 6 and PIONEER 6

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Ensuring competence in ultrasound-guided procedures-a validity study of a newly developed assessment tool

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

We conducted a systematic review of the current status of machine learning (ML) algorithms' ability to identify multiple brain diseases, and we evaluated their applicability for improving existing scan acquisition and interpretation workflows. PubMed Medline, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore literature databases were searched for relevant studies published between January 2017 and February 2022. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. The applicability of ML algorithms for successful workflow improvement was qualitatively assessed based on the satisfaction of three clinical requirements. A total of 19 studies were included for qualitative synthesis. The included studies performed classification tasks (n = 12) and segmentation tasks (n = 7). For classification algorithms, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) ranged from 0.765 to 0.997, while accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity ranged from 80% to 100%, 72% to 100%, and 65% to 100%, respectively. For segmentation algorithms, the Dice coefficient ranged from 0.300 to 0.912. No studies satisfied all clinical requirements for successful workflow improvements due to key limitations pertaining to the study's design, study data, reference standards, and performance reporting. Standardized reporting guidelines tailored for ML in radiology, prospective study designs, and multi-site testing could help alleviate this.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
Artikelnummer1878
TidsskriftDiagnostics
Vol/bind12
Udgave nummer8
ISSN2075-4418
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 3 aug. 2022

ID: 84431641