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

Diagnostic Accuracy of AI Algorithms in Aortic Stenosis Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • - A systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of AI algorithms in screening for aortic stenosis (AS), finding that they can accurately diagnose the condition before severe symptoms develop.
  • - The analysis included data from diverse sources (like ECGs and wearable sensors) and assessed various diagnostic metrics, concluding with a sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 81% for the AI algorithms.
  • - Results indicated high diagnostic accuracy (AUC of 0.909), while various factors (geographic region, AS type, data sources, AI methods) contributed to variations in performance, with a noted potential for publication bias affecting the findings.

Article Abstract

Aortic stenosis (AS) is frequently identified at an advanced stage after clinical symptoms appear. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms for AS screening. We conducted a thorough search of six databases. Several evaluation parameters, such as sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and area under the curve (AUC) value were employed in the diagnostic meta-analysis of AI-based algorithms for AS screening. The AI algorithms utilized diverse data sources including electrocardiograms (ECG), chest radiographs, auscultation audio files, electronic stethoscope recordings, and cardio-mechanical signals from non-invasive wearable inertial sensors. Of the 295 articles identified, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled estimates for AI-based algorithms in diagnosing AS were as follows: sensitivity 0.83 (95% CI: 0.81-0.85), specificity 0.81 (95% CI: 0.79-0.84), PLR 4.78 (95% CI: 3.12-7.32), NLR 0.20 (95% CI: 0.13-0.28), and DOR 27.11 (95% CI: 14.40-51.05). The AUC value was 0.909 (95% CI: 0.889-0.929), indicating outstanding diagnostic accuracy. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses showed that continent, type of AS, data source, and type of AI-based method constituted sources of heterogeneity. Furthermore, we demonstrated proof of publication bias for DOR values analyzed using Egger's regression test ( = 0.002) and a funnel plot. Deep learning approaches represent highly sensitive, feasible, and scalable strategies to identify patients with moderate or severe AS.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11495659PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3121/cmr.2024.1934DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

diagnostic accuracy
12
aortic stenosis
8
systematic review
8
review meta-analysis
8
algorithms screening
8
likelihood ratio
8
ai-based algorithms
8
95%
6
diagnostic
5
algorithms
5

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!