Radiology artificial intelligence: a systematic review and evaluation of methods (RAISE)

Abstract

Objective There has been a large amount of research in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) as applied to clinical radiology. However, these studies vary in design and quality and systematic reviews of the entire field are lacking.This systematic review aimed to identify all papers that used deep learning in radiology to survey the literature and to evaluate their methods. We aimed to identify the key questions being addressed in the literature and to identify the most effective methods employed. Methods We followed the PRISMA guidelines and performed a systematic review of studies of AI in radiology published from 2015 to 2019. Our published protocol was prospectively registered. Results Our search yielded 11,083 results. Seven hundred sixty-seven full texts were reviewed, and 535 articles were included. Ninety-eight percent were retrospective cohort studies. The median number of patients included was 460. Most studies involved MRI (37%). Neuroradiology was the most common subspecialty. Eighty-eight percent used supervised learning. The majority of studies undertook a segmentation task (39%). Performance comparison was with a state-of-the-art model in 37%. The most used established architecture was UNet (14%). The median performance for the most utilised evaluation metrics was Dice of 0.89 (range .49–.99), AUC of 0.903 (range 1.00–0.61) and Accuracy of 89.4 (range 70.2–100). Of the 77 studies that externally validated their results and allowed for direct comparison, performance on average decreased by 6% at external validation (range increase of 4% to decrease 44%). Conclusion This systematic review has surveyed the major advances in AI as applied to clinical radiology. Key Points • While there are many papers reporting expert-level results by using deep learning in radiology, most apply only a narrow range of techniques to a narrow selection of use cases. • The literature is dominated by retrospective cohort studies with limited external validation with high potential for bias. • The recent advent of AI extensions to systematic reporting guidelines and prospective trial registration along with a focus on external validation and explanations show potential for translation of the hype surrounding AI from code to clinic.

Automated Identification of Multiple Findings on Brain MRI for Improving Scan Acquisition and Interpretation Workflows: A Systematic Review

“…Hence, consistent performance results are reported across multiple imaging modalities when using similar methods. [ 19 , 52 ]. However, large performance gaps were seen across clinical settings and study designs, partially owing to the well-documented effect of domain shift [ 53 ].…”

“…ML algorithms for clinical workflow integrations have been studied extensively in the past years with multiple authors suggesting different applications [ 11 , 12 , 52 , 54 , 55 ]. Olthof et al suggest that radiologist workflows could be supported, extended, or replaced by ML functionalities [ 56 ].…”

Automated Artificial Intelligence-Based Assessment of Lower Limb Alignment Validated on Weight-Bearing Pre- and Postoperative Full-Leg Radiographs

“…Thus, the number of published scientific articles about AI has grown significantly in the last three years [ 12 ]. However, only a few research groups have published findings about the automatic assessment of the knee alignment angles on FLR, and only limited external validation exists in the current literature [ 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ]. In particular, the set of evaluated radiographic parameters is small or the separate evaluation of the performance of the algorithms on preoperative and postoperative images is missing altogether.…”

AI in radiology: is it the time for randomized controlled trials?

“…In a recent review published in European Radiology, Kelly et al [10] discussed some critical methodological issues. The lack of explainability in 28% of deep learning clinical radiological papers is worrisome.…”

“…Lack of performance comparison was found in 17% of the reviewed studies, with a set of studies using medically naïve people for comparison. [10] Their findings are concerning and urge improvement of research quality. Using international data for external validation may pose the first step, but RCTs are a stronger tool.…”