Pimrada Potipimpanon1, Natamon Charakorn2, Prakobkiat Hirunwiwatkul2. 1. Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. manaochen@gmail.com. 2. Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thyroid nodules are common. Ultrasonography (US) is the first investigation for thyroid nodules. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is widely integrated into medical diagnosis to provide additional information. The primary objective of this study was to accumulate the pooled sensitivity and specificity between all available AI and radiologists using thyroid US imaging. The secondary objective was to compare AI's diagnostic performance to that of radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review meta-analysis. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library data were searched for studies from inception until June 11, 2020. RESULTS: Twenty five studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of AI were 0.86 (95% CI 0.81-0.91) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.73-0.83), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of radiologists were 0.85 (95% CI 0.80-0.89) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.77-0.86), respectively. The accuracy of AI and radiologists is equivalent in terms of AUC [AI 0.89 (95% CI 0.86-0.92), radiologist 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.93)]. The diagnostic odd ratio (DOR) between AI 23.10 (95% CI 14.20-37.58) and radiologists 27.12 (95% CI 17.45-42.16) had no statistically significant difference (P = 0.56). Meta-regression analysis revealed that Deep Learning AI had significantly greater sensitivity and specificity than classic machine learning AI (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: AI demonstrated comparable performance to radiologists in diagnosing benign and malignant thyroid nodules using ultrasonography. Additional research to establish its equivalency should be conducted.
BACKGROUND: Thyroid nodules are common. Ultrasonography (US) is the first investigation for thyroid nodules. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is widely integrated into medical diagnosis to provide additional information. The primary objective of this study was to accumulate the pooled sensitivity and specificity between all available AI and radiologists using thyroid US imaging. The secondary objective was to compare AI's diagnostic performance to that of radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review meta-analysis. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library data were searched for studies from inception until June 11, 2020. RESULTS: Twenty five studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of AI were 0.86 (95% CI 0.81-0.91) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.73-0.83), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of radiologists were 0.85 (95% CI 0.80-0.89) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.77-0.86), respectively. The accuracy of AI and radiologists is equivalent in terms of AUC [AI 0.89 (95% CI 0.86-0.92), radiologist 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.93)]. The diagnostic odd ratio (DOR) between AI 23.10 (95% CI 14.20-37.58) and radiologists 27.12 (95% CI 17.45-42.16) had no statistically significant difference (P = 0.56). Meta-regression analysis revealed that Deep Learning AI had significantly greater sensitivity and specificity than classic machine learning AI (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: AI demonstrated comparable performance to radiologists in diagnosing benign and malignant thyroid nodules using ultrasonography. Additional research to establish its equivalency should be conducted.
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Vikram Deshpande; Richard O Hynes; Steffen Rickelt; Charlene Condon; Miyeko Mana; Charlie Whittaker; Christina Pfirschke; Jatin Roper; Deepa T Patil; Ian Brown; Anthony R Mattia; Lawrence Zukerberg; Qing Zhao; Runjan Chetty; Gregory Y Lauwers; Azfar Neyaz; Lieve G J Leijssen; Katherine Boylan; Omer H Yilmaz Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-12-18 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Won-Jin Moon; Jung Hwan Baek; So Lyung Jung; Dong Wook Kim; Eun Kyung Kim; Ji Young Kim; Jin Young Kwak; Jeong Hyun Lee; Joon Hyung Lee; Young Hen Lee; Dong Gyu Na; Jeong Seon Park; Sun Won Park Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2011-01-03 Impact factor: 3.500