Ting-Ting Gong

Artificial Intelligence Performance in Image-Based Cancer Identification: Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform cancer diagnosis, ultimately leading to better patient outcomes. Objective We performed an umbrella review to summarize and critically evaluate the evidence for the AI-based imaging diagnosis of cancers. Methods PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, and IEEE databases were searched for relevant systematic reviews from inception to June 19, 2024. Two independent investigators abstracted data and assessed the quality of evidence, using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses. We further assessed the quality of evidence in each meta-analysis by applying the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Diagnostic performance data were synthesized narratively. Results In a comprehensive analysis of 158 included studies evaluating the performance of AI algorithms in noninvasive imaging diagnosis across 8 major human system cancers, the accuracy of the classifiers for central nervous system cancers varied widely (ranging from 48% to 100%). Similarities were observed in the diagnostic performance for cancers of the head and neck, respiratory system, digestive system, urinary system, female-related systems, skin, and other sites. Most meta-analyses demonstrated positive summary performance. For instance, 9 reviews meta-analyzed sensitivity and specificity for esophageal cancer, showing ranges of 90%-95% and 80%-93.8%, respectively. In the case of breast cancer detection, 8 reviews calculated the pooled sensitivity and specificity within the ranges of 75.4%-92% and 83%-90.6%, respectively. Four meta-analyses reported the ranges of sensitivity and specificity in ovarian cancer, and both were 75%-94%. Notably, in lung cancer, the pooled specificity was relatively low, primarily distributed between 65% and 80%. Furthermore, 80.4% (127/158) of the included studies were of high quality according to the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist, with the remaining studies classified as medium quality. The GRADE assessment indicated that the overall quality of the evidence was moderate to low. Conclusions Although AI shows great potential for achieving accelerated, accurate, and more objective diagnoses of multiple cancers, there are still hurdles to overcome before its implementation in clinical settings. The present findings highlight that a concerted effort from the research community, clinicians, and policymakers is required to overcome existing hurdles and translate this potential into improved patient outcomes and health care delivery. Trial Registration PROSPERO CRD42022364278; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42022364278

AI-Derived Blood Biomarkers for Ovarian Cancer Diagnosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background Emerging evidence underscores the potential application of artificial intelligence (AI) in discovering noninvasive blood biomarkers. However, the diagnostic value of AI-derived blood biomarkers for ovarian cancer (OC) remains inconsistent. Objective We aimed to evaluate the research quality and the validity of AI-based blood biomarkers in OC diagnosis. Methods A systematic search was performed in the MEDLINE, Embase, IEEE Xplore, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases. Studies examining the diagnostic accuracy of AI in discovering OC blood biomarkers were identified. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies–AI tool. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were estimated using a bivariate model for the diagnostic meta-analysis. Results A total of 40 studies were ultimately included. Most (n=31, 78%) included studies were evaluated as low risk of bias. Overall, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 85% (95% CI 83%-87%), 91% (95% CI 90%-92%), and 0.95 (95% CI 0.92-0.96), respectively. For contingency tables with the highest accuracy, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 95% (95% CI 90%-97%), 97% (95% CI 95%-98%), and 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1.00), respectively. Stratification by AI algorithms revealed higher sensitivity and specificity in studies using machine learning (sensitivity=85% and specificity=92%) compared to those using deep learning (sensitivity=77% and specificity=85%). In addition, studies using serum reported substantially higher sensitivity (94%) and specificity (96%) than those using plasma (sensitivity=83% and specificity=91%). Stratification by external validation demonstrated significantly higher specificity in studies with external validation (specificity=94%) compared to those without external validation (specificity=89%), while the reverse was observed for sensitivity (74% vs 90%). No publication bias was detected in this meta-analysis. Conclusions AI algorithms demonstrate satisfactory performance in the diagnosis of OC using blood biomarkers and are anticipated to become an effective diagnostic modality in the future, potentially avoiding unnecessary surgeries. Future research is warranted to incorporate external validation into AI diagnostic models, as well as to prioritize the adoption of deep learning methodologies. Trial Registration PROSPERO CRD42023481232; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023481232