Convolutional neural network performance compared to radiologists in detecting intracranial hemorrhage from brain computed tomography: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Artificial Intelligence
Computed tomography
Intracranial hemorrhage
Meta-analysis
Systematic review
Journal
European journal of radiology
ISSN: 1872-7727
Titre abrégé: Eur J Radiol
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 8106411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2022
Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
27
05
2021
revised:
01
10
2021
accepted:
22
11
2021
pubmed:
1
12
2021
medline:
4
1
2022
entrez:
30
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare the diagnostic accuracy of convolutional neural networks (CNN) with radiologists as the reference standard in the diagnosis of intracranial hemorrhages (ICH) with non contrast computed tomography of the cerebrum (NCTC). PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for the period from 1 January 2012 to 20 July 2020; eligible studies included patients with and without ICH as the target condition undergoing NCTC, studies had deep learning algorithms based on CNNs and radiologists reports as the minimum reference standard. Pooled sensitivities, specificities and a summary receiver operating characteristics curve (SROC) were employed for meta-analysis. 5,119 records were identified through database searching. Title-screening left 47 studies for full-text assessment and 6 studies for meta-analysis. Comparing the CNN performance to reference standards in the retrospective studies found a pooled sensitivity of 96.00% (95% CI: 93.00% to 97.00%), pooled specificity of 97.00% (95% CI: 90.00% to 99.00%) and SROC of 98.00% (95% CI: 97.00% to 99.00%), and combining retrospective and studies with external datasets found a pooled sensitivity of 95.00% (95% CI: 91.00% to 97.00%), pooled specificity of 96.00% (95% CI: 91.00% to 98.00%) and a pooled SROC of 98.00% (95% CI: 97.00% to 99.00%). This review found the diagnostic performance of CNNs to be equivalent to that of radiologists for retrospective studies. Out-of-sample external validation studies pooled with retrospective studies found CNN performance to be slightly worse. There is a critical need for studies with a robust reference standard and external data-set validation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34847397
pii: S0720-048X(21)00554-4
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.110073
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
110073Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.