» Articles » PMID: 33828217

Diagnostic Accuracy of Deep Learning in Medical Imaging: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview
Journal NPJ Digit Med
Date 2021 Apr 8
PMID 33828217
Citations 190
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Deep learning (DL) has the potential to transform medical diagnostics. However, the diagnostic accuracy of DL is uncertain. Our aim was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of DL algorithms to identify pathology in medical imaging. Searches were conducted in Medline and EMBASE up to January 2020. We identified 11,921 studies, of which 503 were included in the systematic review. Eighty-two studies in ophthalmology, 82 in breast disease and 115 in respiratory disease were included for meta-analysis. Two hundred twenty-four studies in other specialities were included for qualitative review. Peer-reviewed studies that reported on the diagnostic accuracy of DL algorithms to identify pathology using medical imaging were included. Primary outcomes were measures of diagnostic accuracy, study design and reporting standards in the literature. Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. In ophthalmology, AUC's ranged between 0.933 and 1 for diagnosing diabetic retinopathy, age-related macular degeneration and glaucoma on retinal fundus photographs and optical coherence tomography. In respiratory imaging, AUC's ranged between 0.864 and 0.937 for diagnosing lung nodules or lung cancer on chest X-ray or CT scan. For breast imaging, AUC's ranged between 0.868 and 0.909 for diagnosing breast cancer on mammogram, ultrasound, MRI and digital breast tomosynthesis. Heterogeneity was high between studies and extensive variation in methodology, terminology and outcome measures was noted. This can lead to an overestimation of the diagnostic accuracy of DL algorithms on medical imaging. There is an immediate need for the development of artificial intelligence-specific EQUATOR guidelines, particularly STARD, in order to provide guidance around key issues in this field.

Citing Articles

A Thorough Review of the Clinical Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Lung Cancer.

Kotoulas S, Spyratos D, Porpodis K, Domvri K, Boutou A, Kaimakamis E Cancers (Basel). 2025; 17(5).

PMID: 40075729 PMC: 11898928. DOI: 10.3390/cancers17050882.


Development of a deep learning-based model for guiding a dissection during robotic breast surgery.

Lee J, Ham S, Kim N, Park H Breast Cancer Res. 2025; 27(1):34.

PMID: 40065440 PMC: 11895239. DOI: 10.1186/s13058-025-01981-3.


Diagnostic test accuracy of AI-assisted mammography for breast imaging: a narrative review.

Dave D, Akhunzada A, Ivkovic N, Gyawali S, Cengiz K, Ahmed A PeerJ Comput Sci. 2025; 11:e2476.

PMID: 40062243 PMC: 11888881. DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.2476.


Advancements in Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence in the Radiological Detection of Pulmonary Embolism.

Mohanarajan M, Salunke P, Arif A, Iglesias Gonzalez P, Ospina D, Benavides D Cureus. 2025; 17(1):e78217.

PMID: 40026993 PMC: 11872007. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.78217.


A Methodological Framework for AI-Assisted Diagnosis of Ovarian Masses Using CT and MR Imaging.

Adusumilli P, Ravikumar N, Hall G, Scarsbrook A J Pers Med. 2025; 15(2).

PMID: 39997351 PMC: 11856859. DOI: 10.3390/jpm15020076.


References
1.
Becker A, Mueller M, Stoffel E, Marcon M, Ghafoor S, Boss A . Classification of breast cancer in ultrasound imaging using a generic deep learning analysis software: a pilot study. Br J Radiol. 2017; 91(1083):20170576. PMC: 5965470. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20170576. View

2.
Bossuyt P, Reitsma J, Bruns D, Gatsonis C, Glasziou P, Irwig L . STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ. 2015; 351:h5527. PMC: 4623764. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h5527. View

3.
DerSimonian R, Laird N . Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986; 7(3):177-88. DOI: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2. View

4.
Dunnmon J, Yi D, Langlotz C, Re C, Rubin D, Lungren M . Assessment of Convolutional Neural Networks for Automated Classification of Chest Radiographs. Radiology. 2018; 290(2):537-544. PMC: 6358056. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2018181422. View

5.
Krause J, Gulshan V, Rahimy E, Karth P, Widner K, Corrado G . Grader Variability and the Importance of Reference Standards for Evaluating Machine Learning Models for Diabetic Retinopathy. Ophthalmology. 2018; 125(8):1264-1272. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.01.034. View