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.

• Publikační typ
• systematický přehled MeSH