Pakanat Decharatanachart1, Roongruedee Chaiteerakij2,3, Thodsawit Tiyarattanachai4, Sombat Treeprasertsuk5. 1. Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai Red Cross Society, 1873 Rama IV Rd., Pathum Wan, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand. roon.chaiteerakij@chula.md. 3. Center of Excellence for Innovation and Endoscopy in Gastrointestinal Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. roon.chaiteerakij@chula.md. 4. Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. 5. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai Red Cross Society, 1873 Rama IV Rd., Pathum Wan, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The gold standard for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is liver biopsy. Various noninvasive modalities, e.g., ultrasonography, elastography and clinical predictive scores, have been used as alternatives to liver biopsy, with limited performance. Recently, artificial intelligence (AI) models have been developed and integrated into noninvasive diagnostic tools to improve their performance. METHODS: We systematically searched for studies on AI-assisted diagnosis of liver fibrosis and NAFLD on MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using a random effects model. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve and the area under the curve was generated to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the AI-assisted system. Subgroup analyses by diagnostic modalities, population and AI classifiers were performed. RESULTS: We included 19 studies reporting the performances of AI-assisted ultrasonography, elastrography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and clinical parameters for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis and steatosis. For the diagnosis of liver fibrosis, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and DOR were 0.78 (0.71-0.85), 0.89 (0.81-0.94), 0.72 (0.58-0.83), 0.92 (0.88-0.94) and 31.58 (11.84-84.25), respectively, for cirrhosis; 0.86 (0.80-0.90), 0.87 (0.80-0.92), 0.85 (0.75-0.91), 0.88 (0.82-0.92) and 37.79 (16.01-89.19), respectively; for advanced fibrosis; and 0.86 (0.78-0.92), 0.81 (0.77-0.84), 0.88 (0.80-0.93), 0.77 (0.58-0.89) and 26.79 (14.47-49.62), respectively, for significant fibrosis. Subgroup analyses showed significant differences in performance for the diagnosis of fibrosis among different modalities. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and DOR were 0.97 (0.76-1.00), 0.91 (0.78-0.97), 0.95 (0.87-0.98), 0.93 (0.80-0.98) and 191.52 (38.82-944.81), respectively, for the diagnosis of liver steatosis. CONCLUSIONS: AI-assisted systems have promising potential for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis and NAFLD. Validations of their performances are warranted before implementing these AI-assisted systems in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020183295).
BACKGROUND: The gold standard for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is liver biopsy. Various noninvasive modalities, e.g., ultrasonography, elastography and clinical predictive scores, have been used as alternatives to liver biopsy, with limited performance. Recently, artificial intelligence (AI) models have been developed and integrated into noninvasive diagnostic tools to improve their performance. METHODS: We systematically searched for studies on AI-assisted diagnosis of liver fibrosis and NAFLD on MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using a random effects model. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve and the area under the curve was generated to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the AI-assisted system. Subgroup analyses by diagnostic modalities, population and AI classifiers were performed. RESULTS: We included 19 studies reporting the performances of AI-assisted ultrasonography, elastrography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and clinical parameters for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis and steatosis. For the diagnosis of liver fibrosis, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and DOR were 0.78 (0.71-0.85), 0.89 (0.81-0.94), 0.72 (0.58-0.83), 0.92 (0.88-0.94) and 31.58 (11.84-84.25), respectively, for cirrhosis; 0.86 (0.80-0.90), 0.87 (0.80-0.92), 0.85 (0.75-0.91), 0.88 (0.82-0.92) and 37.79 (16.01-89.19), respectively; for advanced fibrosis; and 0.86 (0.78-0.92), 0.81 (0.77-0.84), 0.88 (0.80-0.93), 0.77 (0.58-0.89) and 26.79 (14.47-49.62), respectively, for significant fibrosis. Subgroup analyses showed significant differences in performance for the diagnosis of fibrosis among different modalities. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and DOR were 0.97 (0.76-1.00), 0.91 (0.78-0.97), 0.95 (0.87-0.98), 0.93 (0.80-0.98) and 191.52 (38.82-944.81), respectively, for the diagnosis of liver steatosis. CONCLUSIONS: AI-assisted systems have promising potential for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis and NAFLD. Validations of their performances are warranted before implementing these AI-assisted systems in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020183295).
Authors: Yasmine Ahmed; Rasha S Hussein; Tamer A Basha; Ayman M Khalifa; Ahmed S Ibrahim; Ahmed S Abdelmoaty; Heba M Abdella; Ahmed S Fahmy Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Robert P Myers; Yves Benhamou; Françoise Imbert-Bismut; Vincent Thibault; Marie Bochet; Frédéric Charlotte; Vlad Ratziu; François Bricaire; Christine Katlama; Thierry Poynard Journal: AIDS Date: 2003-03-28 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Anas Taha; Vincent Ochs; Leos N Kayhan; Bassey Enodien; Daniel M Frey; Lukas Krähenbühl; Stephanie Taha-Mehlitz Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2022-03-22 Impact factor: 2.948