Comparative performance of fully-automated and semi-automated artificial intelligence methods for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer on MRI: a systematic review.
View / Open Files
Authors
Moreira Da Silva, Nadia
Yeung, Michael
Rundo, Leonardo
Publication Date
2022-03-28Journal Title
Insights Imaging
ISSN
1869-4101
Publisher
Springer
Type
Article
This Version
AM
Later Version(s)
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Sushentsev, N., Moreira Da Silva, N., Yeung, M., Barrett, T., Sala, E., Roberts, M., & Rundo, L. (2022). Comparative performance of fully-automated and semi-automated artificial intelligence methods for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer on MRI: a systematic review.. Insights Imaging https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01199-3
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We systematically reviewed the current literature evaluating the ability of fully-automated deep learning (DL) and semi-automated traditional machine learning (TML) MRI-based artificial intelligence (AI) methods to differentiate clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) from indolent PCa (iPCa) and benign conditions. METHODS: We performed a computerised bibliographic search of studies indexed in MEDLINE/PubMed, arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv between 1 January 2016 and 31 July 2021. Two reviewers performed the title/abstract and full-text screening. The remaining papers were screened by four reviewers using the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) for DL studies and Radiomics Quality Score (RQS) for TML studies. Papers that fulfilled the pre-defined screening requirements underwent full CLAIM/RQS evaluation alongside the risk of bias assessment using QUADAS-2, both conducted by the same four reviewers. Standard measures of discrimination were extracted for the developed predictive models. RESULTS: 17/28 papers (five DL and twelve TML) passed the quality screening and were subject to a full CLAIM/RQS/QUADAS-2 assessment, which revealed a substantial study heterogeneity that precluded us from performing quantitative analysis as part of this review. The mean RQS of TML papers was 11/36, and a total of five papers had a high risk of bias. AUCs of DL and TML papers with low risk of bias ranged between 0.80-0.89 and 0.75-0.88, respectively. CONCLUSION: We observed comparable performance of the two classes of AI methods and identified a number of common methodological limitations and biases that future studies will need to address to ensure the generalisability of the developed models.
Sponsorship
The review is supported by the National Institute of Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cancer Research UK (Cambridge Imaging Centre grant number C197/A16465), the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Imaging Centre in Cambridge and Manchester, Gates Cambridge Trust, The Mark Foundation for Cancer Research, the Wellcome Trust, CRUK National Cancer Imaging Translational Accelerator (NCITA) and the Cambridge Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre
Identifiers
External DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01199-3
This record's URL: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/334906
Statistics
Total file downloads (since January 2020). For more information on metrics see the
IRUS guide.
Recommended or similar items
The current recommendation prototype on the Apollo Repository will be turned off on 03 February 2023. Although the pilot has been fruitful for both parties, the service provider IKVA is focusing on horizon scanning products and so the recommender service can no longer be supported. We recognise the importance of recommender services in supporting research discovery and are evaluating offerings from other service providers. If you would like to offer feedback on this decision please contact us on: support@repository.cam.ac.uk