Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39247002›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Advancements in Cholelithiasis Diagnosis: A Systematic Review of Machine Learning Applications in Imaging Analysis.

Almegdad S Ahmed, Sharwany S Ahmed, Shakir Mohamed, Noureia E Salman, Abubakr Ali M Humidan, Rami F Ibrahim, Rammah S Salim, Ahmed A Mohamed Elamir, Elmahdi M Hakim

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. [Construction of a genotype-phenotype database and machine learning models for pseudohypertrophic muscular dystrophy].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

9 authors.

Almegdad S AhmedFaculty of Medicine, University of Khartoum, Khartoum, SDN.
Sharwany S AhmedFaculty of Medicine, University of Khartoum, Khartoum, SDN.
Shakir MohamedFaculty of Medicine, University of Khartoum, Khartoum, SDN.
Noureia E SalmanDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, El-Sahel Teaching Hospital, Cairo, EGY.
Abubakr Ali M HumidanFaculty of Medicine, University of Khartoum, Khartoum, SDN.
Rami F IbrahimFaculty of Medicine, Karary University, Khartoum, SDN.
Rammah S SalimFaculty of Medicine, University of Khartoum, Khartoum, SDN.
Ahmed A Mohamed ElamirFaculty of Medicine, University of Khartoum, Khartoum, SDN.
Elmahdi M HakimFaculty of Medicine, University of Khartoum, Khartoum, SDN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gallstone disease is a common condition affecting a substantial number of individuals globally. The risk factors for gallstones include obesity, rapid weight loss, diabetes, and genetic predisposition. Gallstones can lead to serious complications such as calculous cholecystitis, cholangitis, biliary pancreatitis, and an increased risk for gallbladder (GB) cancer. Abdominal ultrasound (US) is the primary diagnostic method due to its affordability and high sensitivity, while computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) offer higher sensitivity and specificity. This review assesses the diagnostic accuracy of machine learning (ML) technologies in detecting gallstones. This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. An electronic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Embase, covering literature up to April 2024, focusing on human studies, and including all relevant keywords. Various Boolean operators and Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms were used. Additionally, reference lists were manually screened. The review included all study designs and performance indicators but excluded studies not involving artificial intelligence (AI)/ML algorithms, non-imaging diagnostic modalities, microscopic images, other diseases, editorials, commentaries, reviews, and studies with incomplete data. Data extraction covered study characteristics, imaging modalities, ML architectures, training/testing/validation, performance metrics, reference standards, and reported advantages and drawbacks of the diagnostic models. The electronic search yielded 1,002 records, of which 34 underwent full-text screening, resulting in the inclusion of seven studies. An additional study identified through citation searching brought the total to eight articles. Most studies employed a retrospective cross-sectional design, except for one prospective study. Imaging modalities included ultrasonography (four studies), computed tomography (three studies), and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (one study). Patient numbers ranged from 60 to 2,386, and image numbers ranged from 60 to 17,560 images included in the training, validation, and testing of the diagnostic models. All studies utilized neural networks, predominantly convolutional neural networks (CNNs). Expert radiologists served as the reference standard for image labelling, and model performances were compared against human doctors or other algorithms. Performance indicators such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were commonly used. In conclusion, while the reviewed machine learning models show promising performance in diagnosing gallstones, significant work remains to be done to ensure their reliability and generalizability across diverse clinical settings. The potential for these models to improve diagnostic accuracy and efficiency is evident, but the careful consideration of their limitations and rigorous validation are essential steps toward their successful integration into clinical practice.

Indexed as

cholelithiasisdiagnostic modelsgallstone diseaseimaging analysismachine learning

Identifiers

PMID39247002
PMCPMC11380526

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.