Dataset Information

Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Deep Learning Detection of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: To perform a meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of deep learning (DL) in detecting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and to investigate how network architecture and type of datasets affect DL performance. We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Inspec from January 1, 2020, to December 3, 2020, for retrospective and prospective studies on deep learning detection with at least reported sensitivity and specificity. Pooled DTA was obtained using random-effect models. Sub-group analysis between studies was also carried out for data source and network architectures. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 91% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 88%, 93%; I2 = 69%) and 92% (95% CI: 88%, 94%; I2 = 88%), respectively for 19 studies. The pooled AUC and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were 0.95 (95% CI: 0.88, 0.92) and 112.5 (95% CI: 57.7, 219.3; I2 = 90%) respectively. The overall accuracy, recall, F1-score, LR+ and LR- are 89.5%, 89.5%, 89.7%, 23.13 and 0.13. Sub-group analysis shows that the sensitivity and DOR significantly vary with the type of network architectures and sources of data with low heterogeneity are (I2 = 0%) and (I2 = 18%) for ResNet architecture and single-source datasets, respectively. The diagnosis of COVID-19 via deep learning has achieved incredible performance, and the source of datasets, as well as network architectures, strongly affect DL performance.

SUBMITTER: Komolafe TE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8445811 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Deep Learning Detection of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Komolafe Temitope Emmanuel TE Cao Yuzhu Y Nguchu Benedictor Alexander BA Monkam Patrice P Olaniyi Ebenezer Obaloluwa EO Sun Haotian H Zheng Jian J Yang Xiaodong X

Academic radiology 20210917 11

<h4>Rationale and objective</h4>To perform a meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of deep learning (DL) in detecting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and to investigate how network architecture and type of datasets affect DL performance.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Inspec from January 1, 2020, to December 3, 2020, for retrospective and prospective studies on deep learning detection with at least reported sensitivity and specifici ...[more]

PMID: 34649779

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe prevalence of Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is increasing among adults. Histopathologic samples obtained after surgical resection or from biopsies of a renal mass require subtype classification for diagnosis, prognosis, and to determine surveillance. Deep learning in artificial intelligence (AI) and pathomics are rapidly advancing, leading to numerous applications such as histopathological diagnosis. In our meta-analysis, we assessed the pooled diagnostic performances of deep neural network (DNN) frameworks in detecting RCC subtypes and to predicting survival.MethodsA systematic search was done in PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, and Scopus from inception to November 2023. The random effects model was used to calculate the pooled percentages, mean, and 95% confidence interval. Accuracy was defined as the number of cases identified by AI out of the total number of cases, i.e. (True Positive + True Negative)/(True Positive + True Negative + False Positive + False Negative). The heterogeneity between study-specific estimates was assessed by the I 2 statistic. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to conduct and report the analysis.ResultsThe search retrieved 347 studies; 13 retrospective studies evaluating 5340 patients were included in the final analysis. The pooled performance of the DNN was as follows: accuracy 92.3% (95% CI: 85.8-95.9; I 2 = 98.3%), sensitivity 97.5% (95% CI: 83.2-99.7; I 2 = 92%), specificity 89.2% (95% CI: 29.9-99.4; I 2 = 99.6%) and area under the curve 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85-0.97.3; I 2 = 99.6%). Specifically, their accuracy in RCC subtype detection was 93.5% (95% CI: 88.7-96.3; I 2 = 92%), and the accuracy in survival analysis prediction was 81% (95% CI: 67.8-89.6; I 2 = 94.4%).DiscussionThe DNN showed excellent pooled diagnostic accuracy rates to classify RCC into subtypes and grade them for prognostic purposes. Further studies are required to establish generalizability and validate these findings on a larger scale.

Project description:BackgroundOsteoporosis is one of the most common metabolic diseases that is characterized by a decrease in bone density and a loss of the quality of the bone structure. The use of deep learning in the prediction of osteoporosis can provide a non-invasive, cost-effective, and efficient approach. The aim of this study is to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of deep learning in the prediction of osteoporosis.MethodsThis is a systematic review and meta-analysis study that was conducted on the diagnostic accuracy of deep learning algorithms for predicting osteoporosis. A literature search was performed in electronic databases including PubMed, Elsevier, and Google Scholar to identify relevant articles until December 1, 2023. Articles were searched in databases by combining related terms such as "deep learning", "convolutional neural network", and "osteoporosis". We conducted title, abstract, and full-text screening based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. Various metrics, such as sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC), were used to assess the diagnostic performance of deep learning models.ResultsOut of the 181 articles initially identified, 10 studies were included in the analysis. All studies used a convolutional neural network (CNN) as the deep learning model. Three studies investigated multiple deep learning models. Eight studies used various architectures of CNN, such as ResNet, VGG, and EfficientNet. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.86 (95% CI, 0.82-0.89) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.85-0.91), respectively. The bivariate approach's pooled SROC curve produced an AUC of 0.94 (95% CI 0.91-0.95). The Diagnostic Odds Ratio (DOR) for the deep learning models was 49.09 (95% CI, 28.74-83.84). Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test (P = 0.4) suggested no potential publication bias.ConclusionsDeep learning has an acceptable performance for the diagnosis of osteoporosis, even better than other ML algorithms. However, further research is needed to validate the findings of this study in clinical trials.

Project description:Melanoma has the highest mortality rate among skin cancers, and early-diagnosis is essential to maximize survival rate. The current procedure for melanoma diagnosis is based on dermoscopy, i.e., a qualitative visual inspection of lesions with intrinsic limited diagnostic reliability and reproducibility. Other non-invasive diagnostic techniques may represent valuable solutions to retrieve additional objective information of a lesion. This review aims to compare the diagnostic performance of non-invasive techniques, alternative to dermoscopy, for melanoma detection in clinical settings. A systematic review of the available literature was performed using PubMed, Scopus and Google scholar databases (2010-September 2020). All human, in-vivo, non-invasive studies using techniques, alternative to dermoscopy, for melanoma diagnosis were included with no restriction on the recruited population. The reference standard was histology but dermoscopy was accepted only in case of benign lesions. Attributes of the analyzed studies were compared, and the quality was evaluated using CASP Checklist. For studies in which the investigated technique was implemented as a diagnostic tool (DTA studies), the QUADAS-2 tool was applied. For DTA studies that implemented a melanoma vs. other skin lesions classification task, a meta-analysis was performed reporting the SROC curves. Sixty-two references were included in the review, of which thirty-eight were analyzed using QUADAS-2. Study designs were: clinical trials (13), retrospective studies (10), prospective studies (8), pilot studies (10), multitiered study (1); the remain studies were proof of concept or had undefined study type. Studies were divided in categories based on the physical principle employed by each diagnostic technique. Twenty-nine out of thirty-eight DTA studies were included in the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity of studies' types, testing strategy, and diagnostic task limited the systematic comparison of the techniques. Based on the SROC curves, spectroscopy achieved the best performance in terms of sensitivity (93%, 95% CI 92.8-93.2%) and specificity (85.2%, 95%CI 84.9-85.5%), even though there was high concern regarding robustness of metrics. Reflectance-confocal-microscopy, instead, demonstrated higher robustness and a good diagnostic performance (sensitivity 88.2%, 80.3-93.1%; specificity 65.2%, 55-74.2%). Best practice recommendations were proposed to reduce bias in future DTA studies. Particular attention should be dedicated to widen the use of alternative techniques to conventional dermoscopy.

Dataset Information

Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Deep Learning Detection of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Deep Learning Detection of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets