Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33075135›Full record

SynthesisNeuro-oncology2021

Brain metastasis detection using machine learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Se Jin Cho, Leonard Sunwoo, Sung Hyun Baik, Yun Jung Bae, Byung Se Choi, Jae Hyoung Kim

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neuro-oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 115 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Application of an artificial intelligence-based tool in [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Se Jin ChoDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Gyeonggi, Republic of Korea.
Leonard SunwooDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Gyeonggi, Republic of Korea.
Sung Hyun BaikDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Gyeonggi, Republic of Korea.
Yun Jung BaeDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Gyeonggi, Republic of Korea.
Byung Se ChoiDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Gyeonggi, Republic of Korea.
Jae Hyoung KimDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Gyeonggi, Republic of Korea.
Seoul National University Bundang Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate detection of brain metastasis (BM) is important for cancer patients. We aimed to systematically review the performance and quality of machine-learning-based BM detection on MRI in the relevant literature.

methodsA systematic literature search was performed for relevant studies reported before April 27, 2020. We assessed the quality of the studies using modified tailored questionnaires of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) criteria and the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM). Pooled detectability was calculated using an inverse-variance weighting model.

resultsA total of 12 studies were included, which showed a clear transition from classical machine learning (cML) to deep learning (DL) after 2018. The studies on DL used a larger sample size than those on cML. The cML and DL groups also differed in the composition of the dataset, and technical details such as data augmentation. The pooled proportions of detectability of BM were 88.7% (95% CI, 84-93%) and 90.1% (95% CI, 84-95%) in the cML and DL groups, respectively. The false-positive rate per person was lower in the DL group than the cML group (10 vs 135, P < 0.001). In the patient selection domain of QUADAS-2, three studies (25%) were designated as high risk due to non-consecutive enrollment and arbitrary exclusion of nodules.

conclusionA comparable detectability of BM with a low false-positive rate per person was found in the DL group compared with the cML group. Improvements are required in terms of quality and study design.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBrain NeoplasmsHumansMachine LearningMagnetic Resonance Imagingartificial intelligencebrain metastasisdeep learningmachine learningmagnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID33075135
PMCPMC7906058
OpenAlexW3093114238

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.