BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI)-driven software has been developed and become commercially available within the past few years for the detection of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and chronic cerebral microbleeds (CMBs). However, there is currently no systematic review that summarizes all of these tools or provides pooled estimates of their performance. METHODS: In this PROSPERO-registered, PRISMA compliant systematic review, we sought to compile and review all MEDLINE and EMBASE published studies that have developed and/or tested AI algorithms for ICH detection on non-contrast CT scans (NCCTs) or MRI scans and CMBs detection on MRI scans. RESULTS: In total, 40 studies described AI algorithms for ICH detection in NCCTs/MRIs and 19 for CMBs detection in MRIs. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 92.06%, 93.54%, and 93.46%, respectively, for ICH detection and 91.6%, 93.9%, and 92.7% for CMBs detection. Some of the challenges encountered in the development of these algorithms include the laborious work of creating large, labeled and balanced datasets, the volumetric nature of the imaging examinations, the fine tuning of the algorithms, and the reduction in false positives. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous AI-driven software tools have been developed over the last decade. On average, they are characterized by high performance and expert-level accuracy for the diagnosis of ICH and CMBs. As a result, implementing these tools in clinical practice may improve workflow and act as a failsafe for the detection of such lesions. REGISTRATION-URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ Unique Identifier: CRD42021246848.
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI)-driven software has been developed and become commercially available within the past few years for the detection of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and chronic cerebral microbleeds (CMBs). However, there is currently no systematic review that summarizes all of these tools or provides pooled estimates of their performance. METHODS: In this PROSPERO-registered, PRISMA compliant systematic review, we sought to compile and review all MEDLINE and EMBASE published studies that have developed and/or tested AI algorithms for ICH detection on non-contrast CT scans (NCCTs) or MRI scans and CMBs detection on MRI scans. RESULTS: In total, 40 studies described AI algorithms for ICH detection in NCCTs/MRIs and 19 for CMBs detection in MRIs. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 92.06%, 93.54%, and 93.46%, respectively, for ICH detection and 91.6%, 93.9%, and 92.7% for CMBs detection. Some of the challenges encountered in the development of these algorithms include the laborious work of creating large, labeled and balanced datasets, the volumetric nature of the imaging examinations, the fine tuning of the algorithms, and the reduction in false positives. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous AI-driven software tools have been developed over the last decade. On average, they are characterized by high performance and expert-level accuracy for the diagnosis of ICH and CMBs. As a result, implementing these tools in clinical practice may improve workflow and act as a failsafe for the detection of such lesions. REGISTRATION-URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ Unique Identifier: CRD42021246848.
Authors: Matthew J Page; Joanne E McKenzie; Patrick M Bossuyt; Isabelle Boutron; Tammy C Hoffmann; Cynthia D Mulrow; Larissa Shamseer; Jennifer M Tetzlaff; Elie A Akl; Sue E Brennan; Roger Chou; Julie Glanville; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Manoj M Lalu; Tianjing Li; Elizabeth W Loder; Evan Mayo-Wilson; Steve McDonald; Luke A McGuinness; Lesley A Stewart; James Thomas; Andrea C Tricco; Vivian A Welch; Penny Whiting; David Moher Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: P D Chang; E Kuoy; J Grinband; B D Weinberg; M Thompson; R Homo; J Chen; H Abcede; M Shafie; L Sugrue; C G Filippi; M-Y Su; W Yu; C Hess; D Chow Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-07-26 Impact factor: 3.825