Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence-based computer programs to analyze chest x-rays for pulmonary tuberculosis.
Harris, Miriam; Qi, Amy; Jeagal, Luke; Torabi, Nazi; Menzies, Dick; Korobitsyn, Alexei; Pai, Madhukar; Nathavitharana, Ruvandhi R; Ahmad Khan, Faiz.
Afiliação
  • Harris M; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
  • Qi A; Department of Medicine, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
  • Jeagal L; Department of Medicine, Boston University-Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
  • Torabi N; Department of Medicine, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
  • Menzies D; Respiratory Epidemiology and Clinical Research Unit, Montreal Chest Institute & Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
  • Korobitsyn A; Respiratory Epidemiology and Clinical Research Unit, Montreal Chest Institute & Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
  • Pai M; St. Michael's Hospital, Li Ka Shing International Healthcare Education Centre, Toronto, Canada.
  • Nathavitharana RR; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
  • Ahmad Khan F; Respiratory Epidemiology and Clinical Research Unit, Montreal Chest Institute & Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
PLoS One ; 14(9): e0221339, 2019.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31479448
ABSTRACT
We undertook a systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence-based software for identification of radiologic abnormalities (computer-aided detection, or CAD) compatible with pulmonary tuberculosis on chest x-rays (CXRs). We searched four databases for articles published between January 2005-February 2019. We summarized data on CAD type, study design, and diagnostic accuracy. We assessed risk of bias with QUADAS-2. We included 53 of the 4712 articles reviewed 40 focused on CAD design methods ("Development" studies) and 13 focused on evaluation of CAD ("Clinical" studies). Meta-analyses were not performed due to methodological differences. Development studies were more likely to use CXR databases with greater potential for bias as compared to Clinical studies. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (median AUC [IQR]) were significantly higher in Development studies AUC 0.88 [0.82-0.90]) versus Clinical studies (0.75 [0.66-0.87]; p-value 0.004); and with deep-learning (0.91 [0.88-0.99]) versus machine-learning (0.82 [0.75-0.89]; p = 0.001). We conclude that CAD programs are promising, but the majority of work thus far has been on development rather than clinical evaluation. We provide concrete suggestions on what study design elements should be improved.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Tuberculose Pulmonar / Diagnóstico por Computador Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Tuberculose Pulmonar / Diagnóstico por Computador Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article