A PHP Error was encountered

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

The performance of deep learning on thyroid nodule imaging predicts thyroid cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies with independent external test sets. | LitMetric

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.2023.102891DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

thyroid nodule
20
nodule imaging
12
epidemiological studies
12
external test
12
pooled sensitivity
12
sensitivity specificity
12
deep learning
8
systematic review
8
test sets
8
current evidence
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!