| Literature DB >> 35004306 |
Congxin Dai1, Bowen Sun1, Renzhi Wang2, Jun Kang1.
Abstract
Pituitary adenomas (PAs) are a group of tumors with complex and heterogeneous clinical manifestations. Early accurate diagnosis, individualized management, and precise prediction of the treatment response and prognosis of patients with PA are urgently needed. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have garnered increasing attention to quantitatively analyze complex medical data to improve individualized care for patients with PAs. Therefore, we critically examined the current use of AI and ML in the management of patients with PAs, and we propose improvements for future uses of AI and ML in patients with PAs. AI and ML can automatically extract many quantitative features based on massive medical data; moreover, related diagnosis and prediction models can be developed through quantitative analysis. Previous studies have suggested that AI and ML have wide applications in early accurate diagnosis; individualized treatment; predicting the response to treatments, including surgery, medications, and radiotherapy; and predicting the outcomes of patients with PAs. In addition, facial imaging-based AI and ML, pathological picture-based AI and ML, and surgical microscopic video-based AI and ML have also been reported to be useful in assisting the management of patients with PAs. In conclusion, the current use of AI and ML models has the potential to assist doctors and patients in making crucial surgical decisions by providing an accurate diagnosis, response to treatment, and prognosis of PAs. These AI and ML models can improve the quality and safety of medical services for patients with PAs and reduce the complication rates of neurosurgery. Further work is needed to obtain more reliable algorithms with high accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for the management of PA patients.Entities:
Keywords: artificial intelligence; individualized treatment; machine learning; pituitary adenomas; radiomics
Year: 2021 PMID: 35004306 PMCID: PMC8733587 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.784819
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Summary of recent studies related to artificial intelligence and machine learning applications in the pituitary adenomas.
| Author and ref. | Tumor subtypes | Sample size | Task | Models (parameters) | Prediction performance (AUC) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fan et al. ( | Acromegaly | Training ( | Predicting consistency | Elastic net feature selection algorithm | 0.83 | |
| Zeynalova et al. ( | Pituitary macroadenoma |
| Predicting consistency | Artificial neural network | 0.710 | |
| Zhu et al. ( | PAs |
| Determining the softness | CRNN (DenseNet+ResNet) | 0.9178 | |
| Niu et al. ( | PAs | Training set ( | Predicting CSI | Linear support vector machine and nomogram | Training (0.899) | |
| Fan et al. ( | Invasive functional PAs | Primary ( | Predicting treatment response | Support vector machine | Training (0.832) | |
| Staartjes et al. ( | PAs |
| Predicting gross-total resection | Deep neural network | 0.96 | |
| Fan et al. ( | Acromegaly | Training ( | Predicting TSS response | Forward search algorithm | Training (0.8555) | |
| Qiao et al. ( | Acromegaly | Training ( | Test datasets ( | Partial model, full model | Partial model | Full model |
| Penalized logistic regression | 0.781 | 0.867 | ||||
| Gradient boost machine | 0.752 | 0.789 | ||||
| Support vector machine | 0.759 | 0.850 | ||||
| Neural network | 0.790 | 0.787 | ||||
| Ensemble algorithm | 0.775 | 0.853 | ||||
| Validation | cohort | |||||
| 0.759 | 0.897 | |||||
| Hollon et al. ( | PAs | Training ( | Predicting early outcomes | Naive Bayes | 0.795 | |
| Support vector machines | 0.826 | |||||
| Random forest | 0.848 | |||||
| LR-EN regularization | 0.827 | |||||
| Dai et al. ( | Acromegaly | Training ( | Predicting delayed remission | Logistic regression | 0.7945 | |
| Adaptive boosting | 0.7013 | |||||
| GBDT | 0.8061 | |||||
| Extreme gradient boost | 0.8260 | |||||
| Categorical boosting | 0.8239 | |||||
| Random forest | 0.7338 | |||||
| Fan et al. ( | Acromegaly |
| Predicting radiotherapeutic response | Support vector machine | 0.96 | |
| Kocak et al. ( | Acromegaly |
| Predicting response to SA | Wrapper-based algorithm | 0.847 | |
| Park et al. ( | Prolactinoma | Training ( | Predicting the DA response | Random forest | 0.78 (0.63–0.94) | |
| Extra-trees | 0.79 (0.63–0.95) | |||||
| Light GBM | 0.74 (0.57–0.93) | |||||
| QDA | 0.66 (0.48–0.84) | |||||
| LDA | 0.66 (0.46–0.86) | |||||
| Soft voting ensemble | 0.81 (0.67–0.96) | |||||
| Zoli et al. ( | Cushing disease | Training ( | Predicting outcomes of TSS | Training and test | ||
| Support vector machine | 0.681 and 1.00 | |||||
| GBM | 0.719 and 0.783 | |||||
| K-nearest neighbor | 0.993 and 0.988 | |||||
| Zhang et al. ( | Cushing disease | Training ( | Predicting postoperative immediate remission | Extreme gradient boost | 0.712 | |
| GBDT | 0.734 | |||||
| Random forest | 0.726 | |||||
| Adaptive boost | 0.699 | |||||
| Naïve Bayes | 0.681 | |||||
| Logistic regression | 0.701 | |||||
| Decision tree | 0.664 | |||||
| Multilayer perceptron | 0.700 | |||||
| Stacking | 0.743 | |||||
| Fan et al. ( | Cushing disease | Training ( | Predicting | Logistic regression | 0.7262 | |
| Adaptive boosting | 0.7619 | |||||
| GBDT | 0.7262 | |||||
| XGboost | 0.7262 | |||||
| Catboost | 0.7 | |||||
| Liu et al. ( | Cushing disease | Training ( | Predicting recurrence after TSS | Decision tree | 0.629 | |
| Random forest | 0.779 | |||||
| Logistic regression | 0.684 | |||||
| Naïve Bayes | 0.608 | |||||
| GBDT | 0.694 | |||||
| Adaptive boost | 0.716 | |||||
| Extreme gradient boost | 0.735 | |||||
| Voglis et al. ( | PAs |
| Predicting postoperative hyponatremia | Random forest | 0.637 | |
| Naïve Bayes | 0.646 | |||||
| Boosted GLMs | 0.671 | |||||
| GLMs | 0.595 | |||||
| Machado et al. ( | NFP macroadenomas |
| Predicting recurrence after the first surgery | 2D radiomics | 3D radiomics | |
| Multilayer perceptron | 0.92.9 | 0.962 | ||||
| Random forest | 0.877 | 0.962 | ||||
| Support vector machine | 0.860 | 0.946 | ||||
| Logistic regression (LR) | 0.929 | 0.946 | ||||
| K-nearest neighbor | 0.979 | 0.945 | ||||
| Meng et al. ( | Acromegaly | 62 patients with acromegaly and 62 matched controls | Identifying facial features and predicting patients of acromegaly | Linear discriminant analysis | 0.9286 | |
| Wei et al. ( | Acromegaly and Cushing disease | 642 Cushing disease, 896 acromegaly, and 11,447 normal images | Identifying facial anomalies | Convolutional neural networks | Cushing disease | 0.9647 |
| Acromegaly | 0.9556 | |||||
| Normal | 0.9393 | |||||
| Peng et al. ( | PAs | 235 patients with pathologically diagnosed PAs | Immunohistochemically classify PAs subtypes | Support vector machine | 0.9549 | |
| K-nearest neighbor | 0.9266 | |||||
| Naïve Bayes | 0.932 | |||||
| Ugga et al. ( | PAs | 89 patients with available Ki-67 labeling index | Predicting of high proliferative index | K-nearest neighbors | 0.87 | |