Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Evaluating Biases and Quality Issues in Intermodality Image Translation Studies for Neuroradiology: A Systematic Review.
Walston, Shannon L; Tatekawa, Hiroyuki; Takita, Hirotaka; Miki, Yukio; Ueda, Daiju.
Afiliación
  • Walston SL; From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (S.L.W., H.Tatekawa, H.Takita, Y.M., D.U.), Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka Metropolitan University, Osaka, Japan.
  • Tatekawa H; From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (S.L.W., H.Tatekawa, H.Takita, Y.M., D.U.), Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka Metropolitan University, Osaka, Japan.
  • Takita H; From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (S.L.W., H.Tatekawa, H.Takita, Y.M., D.U.), Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka Metropolitan University, Osaka, Japan.
  • Miki Y; From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (S.L.W., H.Tatekawa, H.Takita, Y.M., D.U.), Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka Metropolitan University, Osaka, Japan.
  • Ueda D; From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (S.L.W., H.Tatekawa, H.Takita, Y.M., D.U.), Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka Metropolitan University, Osaka, Japan ai.labo.ocu@gmail.com.
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol ; 45(6): 826-832, 2024 06 07.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38663993
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Intermodality image-to-image translation is an artificial intelligence technique for generating one technique from another.

PURPOSE:

This review was designed to systematically identify and quantify biases and quality issues preventing validation and clinical application of artificial intelligence models for intermodality image-to-image translation of brain imaging. DATA SOURCES PubMed, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore were searched through August 2, 2023, for artificial intelligence-based image translation models of radiologic brain images. STUDY SELECTION This review collected 102 works published between April 2017 and August 2023. DATA

ANALYSIS:

Eligible studies were evaluated for quality using the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) and for bias using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). Medically-focused article adherence was compared with that of engineering-focused articles overall with the Mann-Whitney U test and for each criterion using the Fisher exact test. DATA

SYNTHESIS:

Median adherence to the relevant CLAIM criteria was 69% and 38% for PROBAST questions. CLAIM adherence was lower for engineering-focused articles compared with medically-focused articles (65% versus 73%, P < .001). Engineering-focused studies had higher adherence for model description criteria, and medically-focused studies had higher adherence for data set and evaluation descriptions.

LIMITATIONS:

Our review is limited by the study design and model heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS:

Nearly all studies revealed critical issues preventing clinical application, with engineering-focused studies showing higher adherence for the technical model description but significantly lower overall adherence than medically-focused studies. The pursuit of clinical application requires collaboration from both fields to improve reporting.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neuroimagen Idioma: En Revista: AJNR / AJNR Am J Neuroradiol / AJNR am. j. neuroradiology Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neuroimagen Idioma: En Revista: AJNR / AJNR Am J Neuroradiol / AJNR am. j. neuroradiology Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article