Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36497480›Full record

ReviewCancers2022

Deep Learning for the Diagnosis of Esophageal Cancer in Endoscopic Images: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Md Mohaimenul Islam, Tahmina Nasrin Poly, Bruno Andreas Walther, Chih-Yang Yeh, Shabbir Seyed-Abdul, Yu-Chuan Jack Li, Ming-Chin Lin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Methods in DNA methylation array dataset analysis: A review.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

7 authors.

Md Mohaimenul IslamGraduate Institute of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medical Science and Technology, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 110, Taiwan.
Tahmina Nasrin PolyGraduate Institute of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medical Science and Technology, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 110, Taiwan.
Bruno Andreas WaltherDeep Sea Ecology and Technology, Alfred-Wegener-Institut Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung, Am Handelshafen 12, D-27570 Bremerhaven, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0425-1443
Chih-Yang YehGraduate Institute of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medical Science and Technology, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 110, Taiwan.
Shabbir Seyed-AbdulGraduate Institute of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medical Science and Technology, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 110, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-0412-767X
Yu-Chuan Jack LiGraduate Institute of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medical Science and Technology, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 110, Taiwan.
Ming-Chin LinGraduate Institute of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medical Science and Technology, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 110, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0001-9624-9705

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Esophageal cancer, one of the most common cancers with a poor prognosis, is the sixth leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Early and accurate diagnosis of esophageal cancer, thus, plays a vital role in choosing the appropriate treatment plan for patients and increasing their survival rate. However, an accurate diagnosis of esophageal cancer requires substantial expertise and experience. Nowadays, the deep learning (DL) model for the diagnosis of esophageal cancer has shown promising performance. Therefore, we conducted an updated meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the DL model for the diagnosis of esophageal cancer. A search of PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science, between 1 January 2012 and 1 August 2022, was conducted to identify potential studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of the DL model for esophageal cancer using endoscopic images. The study was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Two reviewers independently assessed potential studies for inclusion and extracted data from retrieved studies. Methodological quality was assessed by using the QUADAS-2 guidelines. The pooled accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) were calculated using a random effect model. A total of 28 potential studies involving a total of 703,006 images were included. The pooled accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value of DL for the diagnosis of esophageal cancer were 92.90%, 93.80%, 91.73%, 93.62%, and 91.97%, respectively. The pooled AUROC of DL for the diagnosis of esophageal cancer was 0.96. Furthermore, there was no publication bias among the studies. The findings of our study show that the DL model has great potential to accurately and quickly diagnose esophageal cancer. However, most studies developed their model using endoscopic data from the Asian population. Therefore, we recommend further validation through studies of other populations as well.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceautomated diagnosisconvolutional neural networkesophageal cancergastrointestinal endoscopy

Identifiers

PMID36497480
PMCPMC9736434

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.