SynthesisAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2024
Evaluating Biases and Quality Issues in Intermodality Image Translation Studies for Neuroradiology: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntermodality image-to-image translation is an artificial intelligence technique for generating one technique from another. PURPOSE: This review was designed to systematically identify and quantify biases and quality issues preventing validation and clinical application of artificial intelligence models for intermodality image-to-image translation of brain imaging. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore were searched through August 2, 2023, for artificial intelligence-based image translation models of radiologic brain images. STUDY SELECTION: This review collected 102 works published between April 2017 and August 2023. DATA ANALYSIS: Eligible studies were evaluated for quality using the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) and for bias using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). Medically-focused article adherence was compared with that of engineering-focused articles overall with the Mann-Whitney DATA SYNTHESIS: Median adherence to the relevant CLAIM criteria was 69% and 38% for PROBAST questions. CLAIM adherence was lower for engineering-focused articles compared with medically-focused articles (65% versus 73%, LIMITATIONS: Our review is limited by the study design and model heterogeneity.
conclusionsNearly all studies revealed critical issues preventing clinical application, with engineering-focused studies showing higher adherence for the technical model description but significantly lower overall adherence than medically-focused studies. The pursuit of clinical application requires collaboration from both fields to improve reporting.
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.