4.7 Review

Radiology artificial intelligence: a systematic review and evaluation of methods (RAISE)

Journal

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
Volume 32, Issue 11, Pages 7998-8007

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-08784-6

Keywords

Radiology; Artificial Intelligence; Methodology; Systematic reviews

Funding

  1. IReL Consortium
  2. Wellcome Trust
  3. Health Research Board [203930/B/16/Z]
  4. Health Service Executive National Doctors Training and Planning
  5. Health and Social Care, Research and Development Division, Northern Ireland
  6. Faculty of Radiologists, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This systematic review examines the advances in artificial intelligence (AI) applied to clinical radiology. The study found that most research in this field uses supervised learning and focuses on segmentation tasks. The UNet architecture is commonly used for performance comparison. The results indicate the potential application of AI in clinical radiology.
Objective There has been a large amount of research in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) as applied to clinical radiology. However, these studies vary in design and quality and systematic reviews of the entire field are lacking.This systematic review aimed to identify all papers that used deep learning in radiology to survey the literature and to evaluate their methods. We aimed to identify the key questions being addressed in the literature and to identify the most effective methods employed. Methods We followed the PRISMA guidelines and performed a systematic review of studies of AI in radiology published from 2015 to 2019. Our published protocol was prospectively registered. Results Our search yielded 11,083 results. Seven hundred sixty-seven full texts were reviewed, and 535 articles were included. Ninety-eight percent were retrospective cohort studies. The median number of patients included was 460. Most studies involved MRI (37%). Neuroradiology was the most common subspecialty. Eighty-eight percent used supervised learning. The majority of studies undertook a segmentation task (39%). Performance comparison was with a state-of-the-art model in 37%. The most used established architecture was UNet (14%). The median performance for the most utilised evaluation metrics was Dice of 0.89 (range .49-.99), AUC of 0.903 (range 1.00-0.61) and Accuracy of 89.4 (range 70.2-100). Of the 77 studies that externally validated their results and allowed for direct comparison, performance on average decreased by 6% at external validation (range increase of 4% to decrease 44%). Conclusion This systematic review has surveyed the major advances in AI as applied to clinical radiology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available