| Literature DB >> 35070002 |
Fadl H Veerankutty1, Govind Jayan2, Manish Kumar Yadav3, Krishnan Sarojam Manoj3, Abhishek Yadav4, Sindhu Radha Sadasivan Nair2, T U Shabeerali2, Varghese Yeldho2, Madhu Sasidharan5, Shiraz Ahmad Rather2.
Abstract
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and augmented realities into the medical field is being attempted by various researchers across the globe. As a matter of fact, most of the advanced technologies utilized by medical providers today have been borrowed and extrapolated from other industries. The introduction of AI into the field of hepatology and liver surgery is relatively a recent phenomenon. The purpose of this narrative review is to highlight the different AI concepts which are currently being tried to improve the care of patients with liver diseases. We end with summarizing emerging trends and major challenges in the future development of AI in hepatology and liver surgery. ©The Author(s) 2021. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.Entities:
Keywords: Artificial neural networks; Deep learning; Hepatectomy; Liver disease; Machine learning; Transplantation
Year: 2021 PMID: 35070002 PMCID: PMC8727218 DOI: 10.4254/wjh.v13.i12.1977
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Hepatol
Review of articles where artificial intelligence has been studied in the context of non-alcoholic liver disease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Byra | Department of Internal Medicine, Hypertension and Vascular Diseases, Medical University of Warsaw, Poland | 55 | Deep CNN | Automatically diagnose the amount of fat in the liver from US images | AUROC, Delong statistical test, lasso regression method, Spearman correlation coefficient, Meng test |
| Perveen | CPCSSN | 667907 | Decision tree | Classification, NAFLD progression risk | Micro- and Macro-average of Precision, Recall and F-measure, MCC, AUROC |
| Ma | First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, China | 10508 | Several, Weka open source software | Classification, feature selection | Accuracy, specificity, precision, recall ( |
| Vanderbeck | Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, United States | 59 | SVM | Automated assessment of histological features of NAFLD | Precision rate, recall rate, and AUROC |
| Meffert | SHIP | 4222 | Boosting algorithm, discrimination and calibration plots | Scoring system for hepatic steatosis risk | Discrimination (AUROC) and calibration |
| Sowa | University Hospital Essen | 82 | Logistic regression, decision trees, SVM, RF | Distinguish NAFLD from ALD | Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy |
| Kuppili | Instituto Superior Tecnico, University of Lisbon, Portugal | 63 | Extreme Learning Machine- SLFFNN | Stratification of FLD disease in US liver images | AUROC, reliability and stability analysis |
| Sorino | MICOL cohort | 2970 | SVM | Stratify NAFLD risk to reduce need for imaging | Accuracy, variance, calculated confidence limits (95%), the weight of each model (as a %) and the number of ultrasound examinations it could avoid |
| Wu | New Taipei City Municipal Hospital Banqiao Branch | 577 | ANN, NB, RF, LR | Diagnosis and risk stratification in NAFLD | Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity |
ALD: Alcoholic liver disease; ANN: Artificial neural network; AUROC: Area under the receiver operating characteristic; CNN: Convolutional neural network; CPCSSN: Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network; FLD: Fatty liver disease; LR: Logistic regression; MCC: Matthews correlation coefficient; MICOL: Multi-centre Italian study on cholelithiasis; ML: Machine learning; NAFLD: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; NB: Naïve Bayes; RF: Random forest; SHIP: Study of Health in Pomerania; SLFFNN: Single-layer feed-forward neural network; SVM: Support vector machine; US: Ultrasound.
Review of recently published studies where artificial intelligence-based algorithms have been applied to liver transplantation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bertsimas | STAR dataset | - | OCT | Predict 3 mo waitlist mortality-OPOM | ROC curve |
| Cruz-Ramírez | Spanish multi-center study | - | Radial basis function NN | Improve donor-recipient matching using rule-based allocation—MPENSGA 2 algorithm | Accuracy, minimum sensitivity, ROC curve, RMSE, Cohen’s kappa |
| Briceño | Spanish multi-center study | 1003 | Neural Net Evolutionary Programming | Improve equity in donor-recipient matching | Multiple regression analysis, simple logistic regression analysis, ROC curve |
| Ayllón | King’s College Hospital,United Kingdom + MADR-E, Spain | 1437 | ANN | Classification, end-point (3 mo, 1 yr) | ROC curve |
| Wadhwani | UNOS | 1482 | RF | Classification, end-point (3 yr) | Chi-square test, |
| Dorado-Moreno | King’s College Hospital, United Kingdom + MADR-E, Spain | 1492 | Ordinal ANN | Ordinal classification, fourclasses | MAE and the MZE, accuracy, GMS, AMAE |
| Guijo-Rubio | UNOS | 39095 | Cox, SVM, GB | Survival time | C-index, ROC curve, concordance index ipcw |
| Lee | Seoul National University Hospital | 1211 | Several ML methods compared, GBM found to be best | Prediction of AKI after liver transplant | ROC curve, accuracy |
| Lau | Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia | 180 | RF, ANN, logistic regression | Predict 30-d risk of graft failure | ROC curve |
AKI: Acute kidney injury; AMAE: Average mean absolute error; ANN: Artificial neural network; c-index: Concordance index; GB: Gradient boosting; GBM: Gradient boosting machine; GMS: Geometric mean of the sensitivities; MADR-E: Model for Allocation of Donor and Recipient in España; MAE: Mean absolute error; MPENSG-A: Memetic Pareto evolutionary non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm; ML: Machine learning; MZE: Mean zero-one error; NN: Neural network; OCT: Optimal classification tree; OPOM: Optimized prediction of mortality; RF: Random forest; RMSE: Root mean squared error; ROC: Receiver operating characteristic; STAR: Standard Transplant Analysis and Research; SVM: Support vector machine; UNOS: United Network for Organ Sharing.