Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36010228›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022

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

Kaining Sheng, Cecilie Mørck Offersen, Jon Middleton, Jonathan Frederik Carlsen, Thomas Clement Truelsen, Akshay Pai, Jacob Johansen, Michael Bachmann Nielsen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

Kaining ShengDepartment of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-4372-5821
Cecilie Mørck OffersenDepartment of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jon MiddletonDepartment of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, 2200 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-4941-0265
Jonathan Frederik CarlsenDepartment of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-6724-7281
Thomas Clement TruelsenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, 2200 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Akshay PaiDepartment of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jacob JohansenDepartment of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, 2200 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Michael Bachmann NielsenDepartment of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-9380-1688

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencebrain diseasesbrain MRImachine learningworkflow

Identifiers

PMID36010228
PMCPMC9406456

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.