Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital

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

Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

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

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

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

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

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

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

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

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

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

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article number1878
Issue number8
Publication statusPublished - 3 Aug 2022

ID: 84431641