Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 147 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 40 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 28 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 24 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 58 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 201 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 434 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 38 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Artificial intelligence for abnormality detection in high volume neuroimaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2405.05658v1)

Published 9 May 2024 in eess.IV and cs.CV

Abstract: Purpose: Most studies evaluating AI models that detect abnormalities in neuroimaging are either tested on unrepresentative patient cohorts or are insufficiently well-validated, leading to poor generalisability to real-world tasks. The aim was to determine the diagnostic test accuracy and summarise the evidence supporting the use of AI models performing first-line, high-volume neuroimaging tasks. Methods: Medline, Embase, Cochrane library and Web of Science were searched until September 2021 for studies that temporally or externally validated AI capable of detecting abnormalities in first-line CT or MR neuroimaging. A bivariate random-effects model was used for meta-analysis where appropriate. PROSPERO: CRD42021269563. Results: Only 16 studies were eligible for inclusion. Included studies were not compromised by unrepresentative datasets or inadequate validation methodology. Direct comparison with radiologists was available in 4/16 studies. 15/16 had a high risk of bias. Meta-analysis was only suitable for intracranial haemorrhage detection in CT imaging (10/16 studies), where AI systems had a pooled sensitivity and specificity 0.90 (95% CI 0.85 - 0.94) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.83 - 0.95) respectively. Other AI studies using CT and MRI detected target conditions other than haemorrhage (2/16), or multiple target conditions (4/16). Only 3/16 studies implemented AI in clinical pathways, either for pre-read triage or as post-read discrepancy identifiers. Conclusion: The paucity of eligible studies reflects that most abnormality detection AI studies were not adequately validated in representative clinical cohorts. The few studies describing how abnormality detection AI could impact patients and clinicians did not explore the full ramifications of clinical implementation.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Lightbulb Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets

This paper has been mentioned in 1 tweet and received 0 likes.

Upgrade to Pro to view all of the tweets about this paper: