Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background: Accurate diagnosis and early treatment are essential in the fight against lymphatic cancer. The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of medical imaging shows great potential, but the diagnostic accuracy of lymphoma is unclear. This study was done to systematically review and meta-analyse researches concerning the diagnostic performance of AI in detecting lymphoma using medical imaging for the first time.
Methods: Searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, IEEE and Cochrane up to December 2023. Data extraction and assessment of the included study quality were independently conducted by two investigators. Studies that reported the diagnostic performance of an AI model/s for the early detection of lymphoma using medical imaging were included in the systemic review. We extracted the binary diagnostic accuracy data to obtain the outcomes of interest: sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), and Area Under the Curve (AUC). The study was registered with the PROSPERO, CRD42022383386.
Results: Thirty studies were included in the systematic review, sixteen of which were meta-analyzed with a pooled sensitivity of 87% (95%CI 83-91%), specificity of 94% (92-96%), and AUC of 97% (95-98%). Satisfactory diagnostic performance was observed in subgroup analyses based on algorithms types (machine learning versus deep learning, and whether transfer learning was applied), sample size (≤ 200 or > 200), clinicians versus AI models and geographical distribution of institutions (Asia versus non-Asia).
Conclusions: Even if possible overestimation and further studies with a better standards for application of AI algorithms in lymphoma detection are needed, we suggest the AI may be useful in lymphoma diagnosis.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10775443 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-023-02397-9 | DOI Listing |