首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>PLoS Clinical Trials >A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence-based computer programs to analyze chest x-rays for pulmonary tuberculosis
【2h】

A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence-based computer programs to analyze chest x-rays for pulmonary tuberculosis

机译:基于人工智能的计算机程序分析胸部X线检查对肺结核的诊断准确性的系统评价

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

We undertook a systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence-based software for identification of radiologic abnormalities (computer-aided detection, or CAD) compatible with pulmonary tuberculosis on chest x-rays (CXRs). We searched four databases for articles published between January 2005-February 2019. We summarized data on CAD type, study design, and diagnostic accuracy. We assessed risk of bias with QUADAS-2. We included 53 of the 4712 articles reviewed: 40 focused on CAD design methods (“Development” studies) and 13 focused on evaluation of CAD (“Clinical” studies). Meta-analyses were not performed due to methodological differences. Development studies were more likely to use CXR databases with greater potential for bias as compared to Clinical studies. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (median AUC [IQR]) were significantly higher: in Development studies AUC: 0.88 [0.82–0.90]) versus Clinical studies (0.75 [0.66–0.87]; p-value 0.004); and with deep-learning (0.91 [0.88–0.99]) versus machine-learning (0.82 [0.75–0.89]; p = 0.001). We conclude that CAD programs are promising, but the majority of work thus far has been on development rather than clinical evaluation. We provide concrete suggestions on what study design elements should be improved.
机译:我们对基于人工智能的软件的诊断准确性进行了系统的评估,该软件可通过X线胸片(CXR)识别与肺结核兼容的放射学异常(计算机辅助检测或CAD)。我们在四个数据库中搜索了2005年1月至2019年2月之间发表的文章。我们汇总了有关CAD类型,研究设计和诊断准确性的数据。我们使用QUADAS-2评估了偏倚风险。我们纳入了4712篇文章中的53篇:40篇着重于CAD设计方法(“开发”研究)和13篇着重于CAD的评估(“临床”研究)。由于方法上的差异,未进行荟萃分析。与临床研究相比,发展研究更可能使用具有更大偏见潜力的CXR数据库。接收者工作特征曲线下的面积(中位数AUC [IQR])明显更高:在发展研究中AUC:0.88 [0.82-0.90])比临床研究中(0.75 [0.66-0.87]; p值0.004);并采用深度学习(0.91 [0.88-0.99])与机器学习(0.82 [0.75-0.89]; p = 0.001)。我们得出结论,CAD程序很有前途,但是到目前为止,大多数工作都在开发而不是临床评估上。我们就应改进哪些研究设计元素提供具体建议。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号