Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background And Aims: It is still controversial whether deep learning (DL) systems add accuracy to thyroid nodule imaging classification based on the recent available evidence. We conducted this study to analyze the current evidence of DL in thyroid nodule imaging diagnosis in both internal and external test sets.
Methods: Until the end of December 2022, PubMed, IEEE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched. We included primary epidemiological studies using externally validated DL techniques in image-based thyroid nodule appraisal. This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022362892).
Results: We evaluated evidence from 17 primary epidemiological studies using externally validated DL techniques in image-based thyroid nodule appraisal. Fourteen studies were deemed eligible for meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) of these DL algorithms were 0.89 (95% confidence interval 0.87-0.90), 0.84 (0.82-0.86), and 0.93 (0.91-0.95), respectively. For the internal validation set, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 0.91 (0.89-0.93), 0.88 (0.85-0.91), and 0.96 (0.93-0.97), respectively. In the external validation set, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 0.87 (0.85-0.89), 0.81 (0.77-0.83), and 0.91 (0.88-0.93), respectively. Notably, in subgroup analyses, DL algorithms still demonstrated exceptional diagnostic validity.
Conclusions: Current evidence suggests DL-based imaging shows diagnostic performances comparable to clinicians for differentiating thyroid nodules in both the internal and external test sets.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2023.102891 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!