Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31795409›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2019

The Performance of Deep Learning Algorithms on Automatic Pulmonary Nodule Detection and Classification Tested on Different Datasets That Are Not Derived from LIDC-IDRI: A Systematic Review.

Dana Li, Bolette Mikela Vilmun, Jonathan Frederik Carlsen, Elisabeth Albrecht-Beste, Carsten Ammitzbøl Lauridsen, Michael Bachmann Nielsen, Kristoffer Lindskov Hansen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Dana LiDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Bolette Mikela VilmunDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jonathan Frederik CarlsenDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Elisabeth Albrecht-BesteDepartment of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and PET, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Carsten Ammitzbøl LauridsenDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Michael Bachmann NielsenDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-9380-1688
Kristoffer Lindskov HansenDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to systematically review the performance of deep learning technology in detecting and classifying pulmonary nodules on computed tomography (CT) scans that were not from the Lung Image Database Consortium and Image Database Resource Initiative (LIDC-IDRI) database. Furthermore, we explored the difference in performance when the deep learning technology was applied to test datasets different from the training datasets. Only peer-reviewed, original research articles utilizing deep learning technology were included in this study, and only results from testing on datasets other than the LIDC-IDRI were included. We searched a total of six databases: EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), Scopus, and Web of Science. This resulted in 1782 studies after duplicates were removed, and a total of 26 studies were included in this systematic review. Three studies explored the performance of pulmonary nodule detection only, 16 studies explored the performance of pulmonary nodule classification only, and 7 studies had reports of both pulmonary nodule detection and classification. Three different deep learning architectures were mentioned amongst the included studies: convolutional neural network (CNN), massive training artificial neural network (MTANN), and deep stacked denoising autoencoder extreme learning machine (SDAE-ELM). The studies reached a classification accuracy between 68-99.6% and a detection accuracy between 80.6-94%. Performance of deep learning technology in studies using different test and training datasets was comparable to studies using same type of test and training datasets. In conclusion, deep learning was able to achieve high levels of accuracy, sensitivity, and/or specificity in detecting and/or classifying nodules when applied to pulmonary CT scans not from the LIDC-IDRI database.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencedeep learningnodule classificationnodule detection

Identifiers

PMID31795409
PMCPMC6963966

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.