SynthesisNeurosurgical review2024
Evaluation of deep learning algorithms in detecting moyamoya disease: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular and multimodal biomarkers in Moyamoya disease: from pathogenic mechanisms to clinical translation.European journal of medical research · 2026Review
- Research progress of artificial intelligence in moyamoya disease.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The diagnosis of Moyamoya disease (MMD) relies heavily on imaging, which could benefit from standardized machine learning tools. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of deep learning (DL) algorithms for MMD by analyzing sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC) compared to expert consensus. We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for articles published from inception to February 2024. Eligible studies were required to report diagnostic accuracy metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, and AUC, excluding those not in English or using traditional machine learning methods. Seven studies were included, comprising a sample of 4,416 patients, of whom 1,358 had MMD. The pooled sensitivity for common and random effects models was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85 to 0.92) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85 to 0.96), respectively. The pooled specificity was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86 to 0.91) in the common effects model and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.75 to 0.97) in the random effects model. Two studies reported the AUC alongside their confidence intervals. A meta-analysis synthesizing these findings aggregated a mean AUC of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.96) for common effects and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.76 to 1.02) for random effects models. Deep learning models significantly enhance the diagnosis of MMD by efficiently extracting and identifying complex image patterns with high sensitivity and specificity. Trial registration: CRD42024524998 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/displayrecord.php?RecordID=524998.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38951288What 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.