Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40811738›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2025

Performance Evaluation of Deep Learning for the Detection and Segmentation of Thyroid Nodules: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Jiayu Ni, Yue You, Xiaohe Wu, Xueke Chen, Jiaying Wang, Yuan Li

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Jiayu Ni *Departement of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, No. 126, Wenzhou Road, Hangzhou, 310015, China, 86 15005812373.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5913-7763
Yue You *Departement of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, No. 126, Wenzhou Road, Hangzhou, 310015, China, 86 15005812373.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-0121-8928
Xiaohe Wu *Departement of Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-0376-8110
Xueke ChenDepartement of Ultrasound, Yangming Hospital Affiliated to Ningbo University, Yuyao, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-3999-2172
Jiaying WangDepartement of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-2013-019X
Yuan LiDepartement of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, No. 126, Wenzhou Road, Hangzhou, 310015, China, 86 15005812373.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8257-5139

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Thyroid cancer is one of the most common endocrine malignancies. Its incidence has steadily increased in recent years. Distinguishing between benign and malignant thyroid nodules (TNs) is challenging due to their overlapping imaging features. The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical image analysis, particularly deep learning (DL) algorithms, has provided novel solutions for automated TN detection. However, existing studies exhibit substantial heterogeneity in diagnostic performance. Furthermore, no systematic evidence-based research comprehensively assesses the diagnostic performance of DL models in this field. Objective: This study aimed to execute a systematic review and meta-analysis to appraise the performance of DL algorithms in diagnosing TN malignancy, identify key factors influencing their diagnostic efficacy, and compare their accuracy with that of clinicians in image-based diagnosis. Methods: We systematically searched multiple databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, and IEEE, and identified 41 eligible studies for systematic review and meta-analysis. Based on the task type, studies were categorized into segmentation (n=14) and detection (n=27) tasks. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated for each group. Subgroup analyses were performed to examine the impact of transfer learning and compare model performance against clinicians. Results: For segmentation tasks, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 82% (95% CI 79%-84%), 95% (95% CI 92%-96%), and 0.91 (95% CI 0.89-0.94), respectively. For detection tasks, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 91% (95% CI 89%-93%), 89% (95% CI 86%-91%), and 0.96 (95% CI 0.93-0.97), respectively. Some studies demonstrated that DL models could achieve diagnostic performance comparable with, or even exceeding, that of clinicians in certain scenarios. The application of transfer learning contributed to improved model performance. Conclusions: DL algorithms exhibit promising diagnostic accuracy in TN imaging, highlighting their potential as auxiliary diagnostic tools. However, current studies are limited by suboptimal methodological design, inconsistent image quality across datasets, and insufficient external validation, which may introduce bias. Future research should enhance methodological standardization, improve model interpretability, and promote transparent reporting to facilitate the sustainable clinical translation of DL-based solutions.

Indexed as

Deep LearningThyroid NoduleAlgorithmsHumansThyroid Neoplasmsartificial intelligencediagnostic performancePreferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-AnalysesPRISMAsensitivity and specificitysystematic reviewthyroid imaging

Identifiers

PMID40811738
PMCPMC12352704

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.