Artificial intelligence for classification and detection of oral mucosa lesions on photographs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to review and synthesize studies using artificial intelligence (AI) for classifying, detecting, or segmenting oral mucosal lesions on photographs. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Inclusion criteria were (1) studies employing AI to (2) classify, detect, or segment oral mucosa lesions, (3) on oral photographs of human subjects. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). A PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, IEEE, arXiv, medRxiv, and grey literature (Google Scholar) search was conducted until June 2023, without language limitation. RESULTS: After initial searching, 36 eligible studies (from 8734 identified records) were included. Based on QUADAS-2, only 7% of studies were at low risk of bias for all domains. Studies employed different AI models and reported a wide range of outcomes and metrics. The accuracy of AI for detecting oral mucosal lesions ranged from 74 to 100%, while that for clinicians un-aided by AI ranged from 61 to 98%. Pooled diagnostic odds ratio for studies which evaluated AI for diagnosing or discriminating potentially malignant lesions was 155 (95% confidence interval 23-1019), while that for cancerous lesions was 114 (59-221). CONCLUSIONS: AI may assist in oral mucosa lesion screening while the expected accuracy gains or further health benefits remain unclear so far. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Artificial intelligence assists oral mucosa lesion screening and may foster more targeted testing and referral in the hands of non-specialist providers, for example. So far, it remains unclear if accuracy gains compared with specialized can be realized.

Deep learning for diagnosis of head and neck cancers through radiographic data: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This study aims to review deep learning applications for detecting head and neck cancer (HNC) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and radiographic data. METHODS: Through January 2023, a PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Google Scholar, IEEE, and arXiv search were carried out. The inclusion criteria were implementing head and neck medical images (computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET), MRI, Planar scans, and panoramic X-ray) of human subjects with segmentation, object detection, and classification deep learning models for head and neck cancers. The risk of bias was rated with the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2) tool. For the meta-analysis diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was calculated. Deeks' funnel plot was used to assess publication bias. MIDAS and Metandi packages were used to analyze diagnostic test accuracy in STATA. RESULTS: From 1967 studies, 32 were found eligible after the search and screening procedures. According to the QUADAS-2 tool, 7 included studies had a low risk of bias for all domains. According to the results of all included studies, the accuracy varied from 82.6 to 100%. Additionally, specificity ranged from 66.6 to 90.1%, sensitivity from 74 to 99.68%. Fourteen studies that provided sufficient data were included for meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity was 90% (95% CI 0.820.94), and the pooled specificity was 92% (CI 95% 0.87-0.96). The DORs were 103 (27-251). Publication bias was not detected based on the p-value of 0.75 in the meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: With a head and neck screening deep learning model, detectable screening processes can be enhanced with high specificity and sensitivity.