Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

Tytuł pozycji:

Quality assessment of machine learning models for diagnostic imaging in orthopaedics: A systematic review.

Tytuł:
Quality assessment of machine learning models for diagnostic imaging in orthopaedics: A systematic review.
Autorzy:
Lans A; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic Oncology Service, Massachusetts General Hospital - Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114, United States of America; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht - Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584, CX, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: .
Pierik RJB; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic Oncology Service, Massachusetts General Hospital - Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114, United States of America.
Bales JR; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic Oncology Service, Massachusetts General Hospital - Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114, United States of America.
Fourman MS; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic Oncology Service, Massachusetts General Hospital - Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114, United States of America.
Shin D; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic Oncology Service, Massachusetts General Hospital - Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114, United States of America.
Kanbier LN; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic Oncology Service, Massachusetts General Hospital - Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114, United States of America.
Rifkin J; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic Oncology Service, Massachusetts General Hospital - Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114, United States of America.
DiGiovanni WH; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic Oncology Service, Massachusetts General Hospital - Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114, United States of America.
Chopra RR; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic Oncology Service, Massachusetts General Hospital - Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114, United States of America.
Moeinzad R; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic Oncology Service, Massachusetts General Hospital - Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114, United States of America.
Verlaan JJ; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht - Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584, CX, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: .
Schwab JH; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic Oncology Service, Massachusetts General Hospital - Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114, United States of America. Electronic address: .
Źródło:
Artificial intelligence in medicine [Artif Intell Med] 2022 Oct; Vol. 132, pp. 102396. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Sep 06.
Typ publikacji:
Journal Article; Review; Systematic Review
Język:
English
Imprint Name(s):
Publication: Amsterdam : Elsevier Science Publishing
Original Publication: Tecklenburg, Federal Republic of Germany : Burgverlag, c1989-
MeSH Terms:
Orthopedic Procedures*
Orthopedics*
Diagnostic Imaging ; Humans ; Machine Learning
Contributed Indexing:
Keywords: Artificial intelligence; Machine learning; Medical imaging; Orthopaedics
Entry Date(s):
Date Created: 20221007 Date Completed: 20221011 Latest Revision: 20221117
Update Code:
20221216
DOI:
10.1016/j.artmed.2022.102396
PMID:
36207080
Czasopismo naukowe
Background: Machine learning (ML) models are emerging at a rapid pace in orthopaedic imaging due to their ability to facilitate timely diagnostic and treatment decision making. However, despite a considerable increase in model development and ML-related publications, there has been little evaluation regarding the quality of these studies. In order to successfully move forward with the implementation of ML models for diagnostic imaging in orthopaedics, it is imperative that we ensure models are held at a high standard and provide applicable, reliable and accurate results. Multiple reporting guidelines have been developed to help authors and reviewers of ML models, such as the Checklist for AI in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Previous investigations of prognostic orthopaedic ML models have reported concerns with regard to the rate of transparent reporting. Therefore, an assessment of whether ML models for diagnostic imaging in orthopaedics adequately and clearly report essential facets of their model development is warranted.
Purposes: To evaluate (1) the completeness of the CLAIM checklist and (2) the risk of bias according to the QUADAS-2 tool for ML-based orthopaedic diagnostic imaging models. This study sought to identify ML details that researchers commonly fail to report and to provide recommendations to improve reporting standards for diagnostic imaging ML models.
Methods: A systematic review was performed to identify ML-based diagnostic imaging models in orthopaedic surgery. Articles published within the last 5 years were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data using the CLAIM checklist and QUADAS-2 tool, and discrepancies were resolved by discussion with at least two additional reviewers.
Results: After screening 7507 articles, 91 met the study criteria. The mean completeness of CLAIM items was 63 % (SD ± 28 %). Among the worst reported CLAIM items were item 28 (metrics of model performance), item 13 (the handling of missing data) and item 9 (data preprocessing steps), with only 2 % (2/91), 8 % (7/91) and 13 % (12/91) of studies correctly reporting these items, respectively. The QUADAS-2 tool revealed that the patient selection domain was at the highest risk of bias: 18 % (16/91) of studies were at high risk of bias and 32 % (29/91) had an unknown risk of bias.
Conclusions: This review demonstrates that the reporting of relevant information, such as handling missing data and data preprocessing steps, by diagnostic ML studies for orthopaedic imaging studies is limited. Additionally, a substantial number of works were at high risk of bias. Future studies describing ML-based models for diagnostic imaging should adhere to acknowledged methodological standards to maximize the quality and applicability of their models.
(Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies

Prześlij opinię

Twoje opinie są dla nas bardzo ważne i mogą być niezwykle pomocne w pokazaniu nam, gdzie możemy dokonać ulepszeń. Bylibyśmy bardzo wdzięczni za poświęcenie kilku chwil na wypełnienie krótkiego formularza.

Formularz