ReviewCureus2024
Role of Artificial Intelligence in MRI-Based Rectal Cancer Staging: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several studies explored the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based rectal cancer (RC) staging, but a comprehensive evaluation remains lacking. This systematic review aims to review the performance of AI models in MRI-based RC staging. PubMed and Embase were searched from the inception of the database till October 2024 without any language and year restrictions. The prospective or retrospective studies evaluating AI models (including machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL)) for diagnostic performance in MRI-based RC staging compared with any comparator were included in this review. The performance metrics were considered as outcomes. Two independent reviewers were involved in the study selection and data extraction to limit bias; any disagreements were resolved through mutual consensus or discussion with a third reviewer. A total of 716 records were identified from the databases. Out of these, 14 studies (1.95%) were finally included in this review. These studies were published between 2019 and 2024. Various MRI technologies were adapted by the studies and multiple AI models were developed. DL was the most common. The MRI images including T1-weighted images (14.28%), T2-weighted images (85.71%), diffusion-weighted images (42.85%), or the combination of these from different landscapes and systems were used to develop the AI models. The models were built using various techniques, mainly DL such as conventional neural network (28.57%), DL reconstruction (14.28%), Weakly supervISed model DevelOpment fraMework (7.12%), deep neural network (7.12%), Faster region-based CNN (7.12%), ResNet, DL-based clinical-radiomics nomogram (7.12%), LASSO (7.12%), and random forest classifier (7.12%). All the models that used single-type images or combined imaging modalities showed a better performance than manual assessment in terms of higher accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and area under the curve with a score of >0.75. This is considered to be a good performance. The current study indicates that MRI-based AI models for RC staging show great promise with a high performance.
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.