Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38343243›Full record

SynthesisJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2024

Diagnostic Performance of Artificial Intelligence in Detection of Primary Malignant Bone Tumors: a Meta-Analysis.

Mohammad Amin Salehi, Soheil Mohammadi, Hamid Harandi, Seyed Sina Zakavi, Ali Jahanshahi, Mohammad Shahrabi Farahani, Jim S Wu

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
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 at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Mohammad Amin Salehi *School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Pour Sina St, Keshavarz Blvd, Tehran, 1417613151, Iran.
Soheil Mohammadi *School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Pour Sina St, Keshavarz Blvd, Tehran, 1417613151, Iran. soheil.mhm@gmail.com.
Hamid HarandiSchool of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Pour Sina St, Keshavarz Blvd, Tehran, 1417613151, Iran.
Seyed Sina ZakaviSchool of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Ali JahanshahiSchool of Medicine, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.
Mohammad Shahrabi FarahaniMedical Students Research Committee, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran.
Jim S WuDepartment of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Avenue, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Tehran University of Medical Sciences · IRBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USGuilan University of Medical Sciences · IRShahed University · IRTabriz University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We aim to conduct a meta-analysis on studies that evaluated the diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in the detection of primary bone tumors, distinguishing them from other bone lesions, and comparing them with clinician assessment. A systematic search was conducted using a combination of keywords related to bone tumors and AI. After extracting contingency tables from all included studies, we performed a meta-analysis using random-effects model to determine the pooled sensitivity and specificity, accompanied by their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). Quality assessment was evaluated using a modified version of Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) and Prediction Model Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). The pooled sensitivities for AI algorithms and clinicians on internal validation test sets for detecting bone neoplasms were 84% (95% CI: 79.88) and 76% (95% CI: 64.85), and pooled specificities were 86% (95% CI: 81.90) and 64% (95% CI: 55.72), respectively. At external validation, the pooled sensitivity and specificity for AI algorithms were 84% (95% CI: 75.90) and 91% (95% CI: 83.96), respectively. The same numbers for clinicians were 85% (95% CI: 73.92) and 94% (95% CI: 89.97), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for clinicians with AI assistance were 95% (95% CI: 86.98) and 57% (95% CI: 48.66). Caution is needed when interpreting findings due to potential limitations. Further research is needed to bridge this gap in scientific understanding and promote effective implementation for medical practice advancement.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBone NeoplasmsAlgorithmsHumansSensitivity and SpecificityArtificial intelligenceBone malignanciesBone tumorDeep learningMachine learning

Identifiers

PMID38343243
PMCPMC11031503
OpenAlexW4390796890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.