Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40206681›Full record

ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2024

Artificial Intelligence Detection and Segmentation Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Brain Tumors in Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Ting-Wei Wang, Yu-Chieh Shiao, Jia-Sheng Hong, Wei-Kai Lee, Ming-Sheng Hsu, Hao-Min Cheng, Huai-Che Yang, Cheng-Chia Lee, Hung-Chuan Pan, Weir Chiang You and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
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

13 authors.

Ting-Wei WangInstitute of Biophotonics, National Yang-Ming Chiao Tung University, Beitou, Taipei, Taiwan.
Yu-Chieh ShiaoSchool of Medicine, College of Medicine, National Yang-Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Jia-Sheng HongInstitute of Biophotonics, National Yang-Ming Chiao Tung University, Beitou, Taipei, Taiwan.
Wei-Kai LeeInstitute of Biophotonics, National Yang-Ming Chiao Tung University, Beitou, Taipei, Taiwan.
Ming-Sheng HsuSchool of Medicine, College of Medicine, National Yang-Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Hao-Min ChengCenter for Evidence-based Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Huai-Che YangSchool of Medicine, College of Medicine, National Yang-Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Cheng-Chia LeeDepartment of Neurosurgery, Neurological Institute, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Hung-Chuan PanDepartment of Neurosurgery, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Weir Chiang YouDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Jiing-Feng LirngSchool of Medicine, College of Medicine, National Yang-Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Wan-Yuo GuoSchool of Medicine, College of Medicine, National Yang-Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Yu-Te WuInstitute of Biophotonics, National Yang-Ming Chiao Tung University, Beitou, Taipei, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To thoroughly analyze factors affecting the generalization ability of deep learning algorithms on brain tumor detection and segmentation models. Patients and Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and IEEE from inception to July 25, 2023, and 19 studies with 12,000 patients were identified. The criteria required studies to use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for brain tumor detection and segmentation, offer clear performance metrics, and use external validation data sets. The study focused on outcomes such as sensitivity and Dice score. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 and CLAIM tools. The meta-analysis evaluated varying algorithms and their performance across different validation data sets. Results: MRI hardware as the manufacturer may contribute to data set diversity, impacting AI model generalizability. The study found that the best algorithms had a pooled lesion-wise Dice score of 84%, with pooled sensitivities of 87% (patient-wise) and 86% (lesion-wise). Post-2022 methodologies highlighted evolving artificial intelligence techniques. Performance differences were evident among tumor types, likely due to size disparities. 3D models outperformed their 2D and ensemble counterparts in detection. Although specific preprocessing techniques improved segmentation outcomes, some hindered detection. Conclusion: The study underscores the potential of deep learning in improving brain tumor diagnostics and treatment planning. We also identify the need for further research, including developing a comprehensive diversity index, expanded meta-analyses, and using generative adversarial networks for data diversification, paving the way for AI-driven advancements in oncological patient care. Trial Registration: PROPERO (CRD42023459108).

Identifiers

PMID40206681
PMCPMC11976016

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.