SynthesisEuropean radiology2021
Systematic review of research design and reporting of imaging studies applying convolutional neural networks for radiological cancer diagnosis.
Synthesis in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The endorsement of general and artificial intelligence reporting guidelines in radiological journals: a meta-research study.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Pooled it
- Adherence to the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM): an umbrella review with a comprehensive two-level analysis.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Article
- A Systematic Review of Real-Time Deep Learning Methods for Image-Based Cancer Diagnostics.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Assessment of artificial intelligence (AI) reporting methodology in glioma MRI studies using the Checklist for AI in Medical Imaging (CLAIM).Neuroradiology · 2023Article
- An updated systematic review of radiomics in osteosarcoma: utilizing CLAIM to adapt the increasing trend of deep learning application in radiomics.Insights into imaging · 2022Article
- Radiomic assessment of oesophageal adenocarcinoma: a critical review of 18F-FDG PET/CT, PET/MRI and CT.Insights into imaging · 2022Review
- Reporting of Model Performance and Statistical Methods in Studies That Use Machine Learning to Develop Clinical Prediction Models: Protocol for a Systematic Review.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- Native-resolution myocardial principal Eulerian strain mapping using convolutional neural networks and Tagged Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Computers in biology and medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo perform a systematic review of design and reporting of imaging studies applying convolutional neural network models for radiological cancer diagnosis.
methodsA comprehensive search of PUBMED, EMBASE, MEDLINE and SCOPUS was performed for published studies applying convolutional neural network models to radiological cancer diagnosis from January 1, 2016, to August 1, 2020. Two independent reviewers measured compliance with the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM). Compliance was defined as the proportion of applicable CLAIM items satisfied.
resultsOne hundred eighty-six of 655 screened studies were included. Many studies did not meet the criteria for current design and reporting guidelines. Twenty-seven percent of studies documented eligibility criteria for their data (50/186, 95% CI 21-34%), 31% reported demographics for their study population (58/186, 95% CI 25-39%) and 49% of studies assessed model performance on test data partitions (91/186, 95% CI 42-57%). Median CLAIM compliance was 0.40 (IQR 0.33-0.49). Compliance correlated positively with publication year (ρ = 0.15, p = .04) and journal H-index (ρ = 0.27, p < .001). Clinical journals demonstrated higher mean compliance than technical journals (0.44 vs. 0.37, p < .001).
conclusionsOur findings highlight opportunities for improved design and reporting of convolutional neural network research for radiological cancer diagnosis. KEY POINTS: • Imaging studies applying convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for cancer diagnosis frequently omit key clinical information including eligibility criteria and population demographics. • Fewer than half of imaging studies assessed model performance on explicitly unobserved test data partitions. • Design and reporting standards have improved in CNN research for radiological cancer diagnosis, though many opportunities remain for further progress.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.