Cargando…
How far MS lesion detection and segmentation are integrated into the clinical workflow? A systematic review
Introduction: Over the past few years, the deep learning community has developed and validated a plethora of tools for lesion detection and segmentation in Multiple Sclerosis (MS). However, there is an important gap between validating models technically and clinically. To this end, a six-step framew...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10480555/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37659189 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2023.103491 |
_version_ | 1785101813745188864 |
---|---|
author | Spagnolo, Federico Depeursinge, Adrien Schädelin, Sabine Akbulut, Aysenur Müller, Henning Barakovic, Muhamed Melie-Garcia, Lester Bach Cuadra, Meritxell Granziera, Cristina |
author_facet | Spagnolo, Federico Depeursinge, Adrien Schädelin, Sabine Akbulut, Aysenur Müller, Henning Barakovic, Muhamed Melie-Garcia, Lester Bach Cuadra, Meritxell Granziera, Cristina |
author_sort | Spagnolo, Federico |
collection | PubMed |
description | Introduction: Over the past few years, the deep learning community has developed and validated a plethora of tools for lesion detection and segmentation in Multiple Sclerosis (MS). However, there is an important gap between validating models technically and clinically. To this end, a six-step framework necessary for the development, validation, and integration of quantitative tools in the clinic was recently proposed under the name of the Quantitative Neuroradiology Initiative (QNI). Aims: Investigate to what extent automatic tools in MS fulfill the QNI framework necessary to integrate automated detection and segmentation into the clinical neuroradiology workflow. Methods: Adopting the systematic Cochrane literature review methodology, we screened and summarised published scientific articles that perform automatic MS lesions detection and segmentation. We categorised the retrieved studies based on their degree of fulfillment of QNI’s six-steps, which include a tool’s technical assessment, clinical validation, and integration. Results: We found 156 studies; 146/156 (94%) fullfilled the first QNI step, 155/156 (99%) the second, 8/156 (5%) the third, 3/156 (2%) the fourth, 5/156 (3%) the fifth and only one the sixth. Conclusions: To date, little has been done to evaluate the clinical performance and the integration in the clinical workflow of available methods for MS lesion detection/segmentation. In addition, the socio-economic effects and the impact on patients’ management of such tools remain almost unexplored. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10480555 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-104805552023-09-07 How far MS lesion detection and segmentation are integrated into the clinical workflow? A systematic review Spagnolo, Federico Depeursinge, Adrien Schädelin, Sabine Akbulut, Aysenur Müller, Henning Barakovic, Muhamed Melie-Garcia, Lester Bach Cuadra, Meritxell Granziera, Cristina Neuroimage Clin Review Article Introduction: Over the past few years, the deep learning community has developed and validated a plethora of tools for lesion detection and segmentation in Multiple Sclerosis (MS). However, there is an important gap between validating models technically and clinically. To this end, a six-step framework necessary for the development, validation, and integration of quantitative tools in the clinic was recently proposed under the name of the Quantitative Neuroradiology Initiative (QNI). Aims: Investigate to what extent automatic tools in MS fulfill the QNI framework necessary to integrate automated detection and segmentation into the clinical neuroradiology workflow. Methods: Adopting the systematic Cochrane literature review methodology, we screened and summarised published scientific articles that perform automatic MS lesions detection and segmentation. We categorised the retrieved studies based on their degree of fulfillment of QNI’s six-steps, which include a tool’s technical assessment, clinical validation, and integration. Results: We found 156 studies; 146/156 (94%) fullfilled the first QNI step, 155/156 (99%) the second, 8/156 (5%) the third, 3/156 (2%) the fourth, 5/156 (3%) the fifth and only one the sixth. Conclusions: To date, little has been done to evaluate the clinical performance and the integration in the clinical workflow of available methods for MS lesion detection/segmentation. In addition, the socio-economic effects and the impact on patients’ management of such tools remain almost unexplored. Elsevier 2023-08-12 /pmc/articles/PMC10480555/ /pubmed/37659189 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2023.103491 Text en © 2023 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Review Article Spagnolo, Federico Depeursinge, Adrien Schädelin, Sabine Akbulut, Aysenur Müller, Henning Barakovic, Muhamed Melie-Garcia, Lester Bach Cuadra, Meritxell Granziera, Cristina How far MS lesion detection and segmentation are integrated into the clinical workflow? A systematic review |
title | How far MS lesion detection and segmentation are integrated into the clinical workflow? A systematic review |
title_full | How far MS lesion detection and segmentation are integrated into the clinical workflow? A systematic review |
title_fullStr | How far MS lesion detection and segmentation are integrated into the clinical workflow? A systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | How far MS lesion detection and segmentation are integrated into the clinical workflow? A systematic review |
title_short | How far MS lesion detection and segmentation are integrated into the clinical workflow? A systematic review |
title_sort | how far ms lesion detection and segmentation are integrated into the clinical workflow? a systematic review |
topic | Review Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10480555/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37659189 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2023.103491 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT spagnolofederico howfarmslesiondetectionandsegmentationareintegratedintotheclinicalworkflowasystematicreview AT depeursingeadrien howfarmslesiondetectionandsegmentationareintegratedintotheclinicalworkflowasystematicreview AT schadelinsabine howfarmslesiondetectionandsegmentationareintegratedintotheclinicalworkflowasystematicreview AT akbulutaysenur howfarmslesiondetectionandsegmentationareintegratedintotheclinicalworkflowasystematicreview AT mullerhenning howfarmslesiondetectionandsegmentationareintegratedintotheclinicalworkflowasystematicreview AT barakovicmuhamed howfarmslesiondetectionandsegmentationareintegratedintotheclinicalworkflowasystematicreview AT meliegarcialester howfarmslesiondetectionandsegmentationareintegratedintotheclinicalworkflowasystematicreview AT bachcuadrameritxell howfarmslesiondetectionandsegmentationareintegratedintotheclinicalworkflowasystematicreview AT granzieracristina howfarmslesiondetectionandsegmentationareintegratedintotheclinicalworkflowasystematicreview |