The diagnostic performance of AI-based algorithms to discriminate between NMOSD and MS using MRI features: A systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:1
|
作者
Etemadifar, Masoud [1 ]
Norouzi, Mahdi [1 ]
Alaei, Seyyed-Ali [1 ]
Karimi, Raheleh [2 ]
Salari, Mehri [3 ]
机构
[1] Isfahan Univ Med Sci, Sch Med, Esfahan, Iran
[2] Isfahan Univ Med Sci, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, Esfahan, Iran
[3] Shahid Beheshti Univ Med Sci, Funct Neurosurg Res Ctr, Shohada Tajrish Neurosurg Ctr Excellence, Tehran, Iran
关键词
Multiple sclerosis; Artificial Intelligence; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; NMOSD; AI; MS; NEUROMYELITIS-OPTICA; MULTIPLE-SCLEROSIS; CRITERIA; BRAIN; DISTINCTION; REVISIONS;
D O I
10.1016/j.msard.2024.105682
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] findings in Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder [NMOSD] and Multiple Sclerosis [MS] patients could lead us to discriminate toward them. For instance, U-fiber and Dawson's finger-type lesions are suggestive of MS, however linear ependymal lesions raise the possibility of NMOSD. Recently, artificial intelligence [AI] models have been used to discriminate between NMOSD and MS based on MRI features. In this study, we aim to systematically review the capability of AI algorithms in NMOSD and MS discrimination based on MRI features. Method: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, Embase, and IEEE databases up to August 2023. All studies that used AI-based algorithms to discriminate between NMOSD and MS using MRI features were included, without any restriction in time, region, race, and age. Data on NMOSD and MS patients, Aquaporin-4 antibodies [AQP4-Ab] status, diagnosis criteria, performance metrics (accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC), artificial intelligence paradigm, MR imaging, and used features were extracted. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023465265. Results: Fifteen studies were included in this systematic review, with sample sizes ranging between 53 and 351. 1,362 MS patients and 1,118 NMOSD patients were included in our systematic review. AQP4-Ab was positive in 94.9% of NMOSD patients in 9 studies. Eight studies used machine learning [ML] as a classifier, while 7 used deep learning [DL]. AI models based on only MRI or MRI and clinical features yielded a pooled accuracy of 82% (95% CI: 78-86%), sensitivity of 83% (95% CI: 79-88%), and specificity of 80% (95% CI: 75-86%). In subgroup analysis, using only MRI features yielded an accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 83% (95% CI: 78-88%), 81% (95% CI: 76-87%), and 84% (95% CI: 79-89%), respectively. Conclusion: AI models based on MRI features showed a high potential to discriminate between NMOSD and MS. However, heterogeneity in MR imaging, model evaluation, and reporting performance metrics, among other confounders, affected the reliability of our results. Well-designed studies on multicentric datasets, standardized imaging and evaluation protocols, and detailed transparent reporting of results are needed to reach optimal performance.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] AI-Based Reconstruction for Fast MRI-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Chen, Yutong
    Schonlieb, Carola-Bibiane
    Lio, Pietro
    Leiner, Tim
    Dragotti, Pier Luigi
    Wang, Ge
    Rueckert, Daniel
    Firmin, David
    Yang, Guang
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, 2022, 110 (02) : 224 - 245
  • [2] Diagnostic performance of AI-based models versus physicians among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Al-Obeidat, Feras
    Hafez, Wael
    Gador, Muneir
    Ahmed, Nesma
    Abdeljawad, Marwa Muhammed
    Yadav, Antesh
    Rashed, Asrar
    FRONTIERS IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 2024, 7
  • [3] A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance comparison between generative AI and physicians
    Hirotaka Takita
    Daijiro Kabata
    Shannon L. Walston
    Hiroyuki Tatekawa
    Kenichi Saito
    Yasushi Tsujimoto
    Yukio Miki
    Daiju Ueda
    npj Digital Medicine, 8 (1)
  • [4] The diagnostic performance of MRI in osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Menashe, L.
    Hirko, K.
    Losina, E.
    Kloppenburg, M.
    Zhang, W.
    Li, L.
    Hunter, D. J.
    OSTEOARTHRITIS AND CARTILAGE, 2012, 20 (01) : 13 - 21
  • [5] Diagnostic Performance of MRI for Esophageal Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Lee, Sangjune Laurence
    Yadav, Poonam
    Starekova, Jitka
    Christensen, Leslie
    Chandereng, Thevaa
    Chappell, Richard
    Reeder, Scott B.
    Bassetti, Michael F.
    RADIOLOGY, 2021, 299 (03) : 583 - 594
  • [6] Diagnostic Accuracy of AI Algorithms in Aortic Stenosis Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Popat, Apurva
    Saini, Babita
    Patel, Mitkumar
    Seby, Niran
    Patel, Sagar
    Harikrishnan, Samyuktha
    Shah, Hilloni
    Pathak, Prutha
    Dekhne, Anushka
    Sen, Udvas
    Yadav, Sweta
    Sharma, Param
    Rezkalla, Shereif
    CLINICAL MEDICINE & RESEARCH, 2024, 22 (03) : 145 - 155
  • [7] Image-based AI diagnostic performance for fatty liver: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Qi Zhao
    Yadi Lan
    Xunjun Yin
    Kai Wang
    BMC Medical Imaging, 23
  • [8] Image-based AI diagnostic performance for fatty liver: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Zhao, Qi
    Lan, Yadi
    Yin, Xunjun
    Wang, Kai
    BMC MEDICAL IMAGING, 2023, 23 (01)
  • [9] External validation of AI-based scoring systems in the ICU: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Rockenschaub, Patrick
    Akay, Ela Marie
    Carlisle, Benjamin Gregory
    Hilbert, Adam
    Wendland, Joshua
    Meyer-Eschenbach, Falk
    Naeher, Anatol-Fiete
    Frey, Dietmar
    Madai, Vince Istvan
    BMC MEDICAL INFORMATICS AND DECISION MAKING, 2025, 25 (01)
  • [10] A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of MRI for Evaluation of Acute Appendicitis
    Duke, Eugene
    Kalb, Bobby
    Arif-Tiwari, Hina
    Daye, Zhongyin John
    Gilbertson-Dahdal, Dorothy
    Keim, Samuel M.
    Martin, Diego R.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2016, 206 (03) : 508 - 517