Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35313417›Full record

ReviewEndoscopic ultrasound

Pooled diagnostic parameters of artificial intelligence in EUS image analysis of the pancreas: A descriptive quantitative review.

Babu P Mohan, Antonio Facciorusso, Shahab R Khan, Deepak Madhu, Lena L Kassab, Suresh Ponnada, Saurabh Chandan, Stefano F Crino, Gursimran S Kochhar, Douglas G Adler and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Babu P MohanDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Antonio FacciorussoGastroenterology Unit, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
Shahab R KhanBrigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Deepak MadhuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Aster MIMS, Calicut, Kerala, India.
Lena L KassabDepartment of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Suresh PonnadaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Roanoke Medical Center, Roanoke, Virginia, USA.
Saurabh ChandanDepartment of Gastroenterology, CHI Creighton University Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Stefano F CrinoGastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, The Pancreas Institute, G. B. Rossi University Hospital, Verona, Italy.
Gursimran S KochharDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Douglas G AdlerDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Michael B WallaceDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Sheikh Shahkbout Medical City, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
University of Utah · USAllegheny Health Network · USHarvard University · USMalabar Institute of Medical Sciences · INMayo Clinic · USUniversity of Foggia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

EUS is an important diagnostic tool in pancreatic lesions. Performance of single-center and/or single study artificial intelligence (AI) in the analysis of EUS-images of pancreatic lesions has been reported. The aim of this study was to quantitatively study the pooled rates of diagnostic performance of AI in EUS image analysis of pancreas using rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis methodology. Multiple databases were searched (from inception to December 2020) and studies that reported on the performance of AI in EUS analysis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma were selected. The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled rates. In cases where multiple 2 × 2 contingency tables were provided for different thresholds, we assumed the data tables as independent from each other. Heterogeneity was assessed by I

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceendoscopic ultrasoundmeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID35313417
PMCPMC9258019
OpenAlexW4220858087

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.