Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

The application of machine learning to imaging in hematological oncology: A scoping review

S. Kotsyfakis, E. Iliaki-Giannakoudaki, A. Anagnostopoulos, E. Papadokostaki, K. Giannakoudakis, M. Goumenakis, M. Kotsyfakis

. 2022 ; 12 (-) : 1080988. [pub] 20221219

Status neindexováno Jazyk angličtina Země Švýcarsko

Typ dokumentu systematický přehled

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc23003345

BACKGROUND: Here, we conducted a scoping review to (i) establish which machine learning (ML) methods have been applied to hematological malignancy imaging; (ii) establish how ML is being applied to hematological cancer radiology; and (iii) identify addressable research gaps. METHODS: The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. The inclusion criteria were (i) pediatric and adult patients with suspected or confirmed hematological malignancy undergoing imaging (population); (ii) any study using ML techniques to derive models using radiological images to apply to the clinical management of these patients (concept); and (iii) original research articles conducted in any setting globally (context). Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 criteria were used to assess diagnostic and segmentation studies, while the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of observational studies. RESULTS: Of 53 eligible studies, 33 applied diverse ML techniques to diagnose hematological malignancies or to differentiate them from other diseases, especially discriminating gliomas from primary central nervous system lymphomas (n=18); 11 applied ML to segmentation tasks, while 9 applied ML to prognostication or predicting therapeutic responses, especially for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. All studies reported discrimination statistics, but no study calculated calibration statistics. Every diagnostic/segmentation study had a high risk of bias due to their case-control design; many studies failed to provide adequate details of the reference standard; and only a few studies used independent validation. CONCLUSION: To deliver validated ML-based models to radiologists managing hematological malignancies, future studies should (i) adhere to standardized, high-quality reporting guidelines such as the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging; (ii) validate models in independent cohorts; (ii) standardize volume segmentation methods for segmentation tasks; (iv) establish comprehensive prospective studies that include different tumor grades, comparisons with radiologists, optimal imaging modalities, sequences, and planes; (v) include side-by-side comparisons of different methods; and (vi) include low- and middle-income countries in multicentric studies to enhance generalizability and reduce inequity.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc23003345
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20230421100006.0
007      
ta
008      
230413s2022 sz f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.3389/fonc.2022.1080988 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)36605438
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a sz
100    1_
$a Kotsyfakis, Stylianos $u Diagnostic Center 'Ierapetra Diagnosis', Ierapetra, Greece
245    14
$a The application of machine learning to imaging in hematological oncology: A scoping review / $c S. Kotsyfakis, E. Iliaki-Giannakoudaki, A. Anagnostopoulos, E. Papadokostaki, K. Giannakoudakis, M. Goumenakis, M. Kotsyfakis
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: Here, we conducted a scoping review to (i) establish which machine learning (ML) methods have been applied to hematological malignancy imaging; (ii) establish how ML is being applied to hematological cancer radiology; and (iii) identify addressable research gaps. METHODS: The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. The inclusion criteria were (i) pediatric and adult patients with suspected or confirmed hematological malignancy undergoing imaging (population); (ii) any study using ML techniques to derive models using radiological images to apply to the clinical management of these patients (concept); and (iii) original research articles conducted in any setting globally (context). Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 criteria were used to assess diagnostic and segmentation studies, while the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of observational studies. RESULTS: Of 53 eligible studies, 33 applied diverse ML techniques to diagnose hematological malignancies or to differentiate them from other diseases, especially discriminating gliomas from primary central nervous system lymphomas (n=18); 11 applied ML to segmentation tasks, while 9 applied ML to prognostication or predicting therapeutic responses, especially for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. All studies reported discrimination statistics, but no study calculated calibration statistics. Every diagnostic/segmentation study had a high risk of bias due to their case-control design; many studies failed to provide adequate details of the reference standard; and only a few studies used independent validation. CONCLUSION: To deliver validated ML-based models to radiologists managing hematological malignancies, future studies should (i) adhere to standardized, high-quality reporting guidelines such as the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging; (ii) validate models in independent cohorts; (ii) standardize volume segmentation methods for segmentation tasks; (iv) establish comprehensive prospective studies that include different tumor grades, comparisons with radiologists, optimal imaging modalities, sequences, and planes; (v) include side-by-side comparisons of different methods; and (vi) include low- and middle-income countries in multicentric studies to enhance generalizability and reduce inequity.
590    __
$a NEINDEXOVÁNO
655    _2
$a systematický přehled $7 D000078182
700    1_
$a Iliaki-Giannakoudaki, Evangelia $u General Hospital of Heraklion Venizeleio-Pananeio, Heraklion, Greece
700    1_
$a Anagnostopoulos, Antonios $u Agios Savvas Oncology Hospital of Athens, Athens, Greece
700    1_
$a Papadokostaki, Eleni $u General Hospital of Heraklion Venizeleio-Pananeio, Heraklion, Greece
700    1_
$a Giannakoudakis, Konstantinos $u General Hospital of Heraklion Venizeleio-Pananeio, Heraklion, Greece
700    1_
$a Goumenakis, Michail $u 'Apollonion' Diagnostic Center, Heraklion, Greece
700    1_
$a Kotsyfakis, Michail $u Biology Center of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Budweis (Ceske Budejovice), Czechia
773    0_
$w MED00182989 $t Frontiers in oncology $x 2234-943X $g Roč. 12, č. - (2022), s. 1080988
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36605438 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20230413 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20230421095959 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1922876 $s 1189552
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-PubMed-not-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2022 $b 12 $c - $d 1080988 $e 20221219 $i 2234-943X $m Frontiers in oncology $n Front Oncol $x MED00182989
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20230413

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Pouze přihlášení uživatelé

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...