Cargando…
Diagnosis support systems for rare diseases: a scoping review
INTRODUCTION: Rare diseases affect approximately 350 million people worldwide. Delayed diagnosis is frequent due to lack of knowledge of most clinicians and a small number of expert centers. Consequently, computerized diagnosis support systems have been developed to address these issues, with many r...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7164220/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32299466 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13023-020-01374-z |
_version_ | 1783523250880380928 |
---|---|
author | Faviez, Carole Chen, Xiaoyi Garcelon, Nicolas Neuraz, Antoine Knebelmann, Bertrand Salomon, Rémi Lyonnet, Stanislas Saunier, Sophie Burgun, Anita |
author_facet | Faviez, Carole Chen, Xiaoyi Garcelon, Nicolas Neuraz, Antoine Knebelmann, Bertrand Salomon, Rémi Lyonnet, Stanislas Saunier, Sophie Burgun, Anita |
author_sort | Faviez, Carole |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Rare diseases affect approximately 350 million people worldwide. Delayed diagnosis is frequent due to lack of knowledge of most clinicians and a small number of expert centers. Consequently, computerized diagnosis support systems have been developed to address these issues, with many relying on rare disease expertise and taking advantage of the increasing volume of generated and accessible health-related data. Our objective is to perform a review of all initiatives aiming to support the diagnosis of rare diseases. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted based on methods proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. A charting form for relevant study analysis was developed and used to categorize data. RESULTS: Sixty-eight studies were retained at the end of the charting process. Diagnosis targets varied from 1 rare disease to all rare diseases. Material used for diagnosis support consisted mostly of phenotype concepts, images or fluids. Fifty-seven percent of the studies used expert knowledge. Two-thirds of the studies relied on machine learning algorithms, and one-third used simple similarities. Manual algorithms were encountered as well. Most of the studies presented satisfying performance of evaluation by comparison with references or with external validation. Fourteen studies provided online tools, most of which aimed to support the diagnosis of all rare diseases by considering queries based on phenotype concepts. CONCLUSION: Numerous solutions relying on different materials and use of various methodologies are emerging with satisfying preliminary results. However, the variability of approaches and evaluation processes complicates the comparison of results. Efforts should be made to adequately validate these tools and guarantee reproducibility and explicability. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7164220 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-71642202020-04-22 Diagnosis support systems for rare diseases: a scoping review Faviez, Carole Chen, Xiaoyi Garcelon, Nicolas Neuraz, Antoine Knebelmann, Bertrand Salomon, Rémi Lyonnet, Stanislas Saunier, Sophie Burgun, Anita Orphanet J Rare Dis Review INTRODUCTION: Rare diseases affect approximately 350 million people worldwide. Delayed diagnosis is frequent due to lack of knowledge of most clinicians and a small number of expert centers. Consequently, computerized diagnosis support systems have been developed to address these issues, with many relying on rare disease expertise and taking advantage of the increasing volume of generated and accessible health-related data. Our objective is to perform a review of all initiatives aiming to support the diagnosis of rare diseases. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted based on methods proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. A charting form for relevant study analysis was developed and used to categorize data. RESULTS: Sixty-eight studies were retained at the end of the charting process. Diagnosis targets varied from 1 rare disease to all rare diseases. Material used for diagnosis support consisted mostly of phenotype concepts, images or fluids. Fifty-seven percent of the studies used expert knowledge. Two-thirds of the studies relied on machine learning algorithms, and one-third used simple similarities. Manual algorithms were encountered as well. Most of the studies presented satisfying performance of evaluation by comparison with references or with external validation. Fourteen studies provided online tools, most of which aimed to support the diagnosis of all rare diseases by considering queries based on phenotype concepts. CONCLUSION: Numerous solutions relying on different materials and use of various methodologies are emerging with satisfying preliminary results. However, the variability of approaches and evaluation processes complicates the comparison of results. Efforts should be made to adequately validate these tools and guarantee reproducibility and explicability. BioMed Central 2020-04-16 /pmc/articles/PMC7164220/ /pubmed/32299466 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13023-020-01374-z Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Review Faviez, Carole Chen, Xiaoyi Garcelon, Nicolas Neuraz, Antoine Knebelmann, Bertrand Salomon, Rémi Lyonnet, Stanislas Saunier, Sophie Burgun, Anita Diagnosis support systems for rare diseases: a scoping review |
title | Diagnosis support systems for rare diseases: a scoping review |
title_full | Diagnosis support systems for rare diseases: a scoping review |
title_fullStr | Diagnosis support systems for rare diseases: a scoping review |
title_full_unstemmed | Diagnosis support systems for rare diseases: a scoping review |
title_short | Diagnosis support systems for rare diseases: a scoping review |
title_sort | diagnosis support systems for rare diseases: a scoping review |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7164220/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32299466 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13023-020-01374-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT faviezcarole diagnosissupportsystemsforrarediseasesascopingreview AT chenxiaoyi diagnosissupportsystemsforrarediseasesascopingreview AT garcelonnicolas diagnosissupportsystemsforrarediseasesascopingreview AT neurazantoine diagnosissupportsystemsforrarediseasesascopingreview AT knebelmannbertrand diagnosissupportsystemsforrarediseasesascopingreview AT salomonremi diagnosissupportsystemsforrarediseasesascopingreview AT lyonnetstanislas diagnosissupportsystemsforrarediseasesascopingreview AT sauniersophie diagnosissupportsystemsforrarediseasesascopingreview AT burgunanita diagnosissupportsystemsforrarediseasesascopingreview |