Cargando…

Quality of reporting in AI cardiac MRI segmentation studies – A systematic review and recommendations for future studies

BACKGROUND: There has been a rapid increase in the number of Artificial Intelligence (AI) studies of cardiac MRI (CMR) segmentation aiming to automate image analysis. However, advancement and clinical translation in this field depend on researchers presenting their work in a transparent and reproduc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alabed, Samer, Maiter, Ahmed, Salehi, Mahan, Mahmood, Aqeeb, Daniel, Sonali, Jenkins, Sam, Goodlad, Marcus, Sharkey, Michael, Mamalakis, Michail, Rakocevic, Vera, Dwivedi, Krit, Assadi, Hosamadin, Wild, Jim M., Lu, Haiping, O’Regan, Declan P., van der Geest, Rob J., Garg, Pankaj, Swift, Andrew J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9334661/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35911553
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.956811
_version_ 1784759152262774784
author Alabed, Samer
Maiter, Ahmed
Salehi, Mahan
Mahmood, Aqeeb
Daniel, Sonali
Jenkins, Sam
Goodlad, Marcus
Sharkey, Michael
Mamalakis, Michail
Rakocevic, Vera
Dwivedi, Krit
Assadi, Hosamadin
Wild, Jim M.
Lu, Haiping
O’Regan, Declan P.
van der Geest, Rob J.
Garg, Pankaj
Swift, Andrew J.
author_facet Alabed, Samer
Maiter, Ahmed
Salehi, Mahan
Mahmood, Aqeeb
Daniel, Sonali
Jenkins, Sam
Goodlad, Marcus
Sharkey, Michael
Mamalakis, Michail
Rakocevic, Vera
Dwivedi, Krit
Assadi, Hosamadin
Wild, Jim M.
Lu, Haiping
O’Regan, Declan P.
van der Geest, Rob J.
Garg, Pankaj
Swift, Andrew J.
author_sort Alabed, Samer
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There has been a rapid increase in the number of Artificial Intelligence (AI) studies of cardiac MRI (CMR) segmentation aiming to automate image analysis. However, advancement and clinical translation in this field depend on researchers presenting their work in a transparent and reproducible manner. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the quality of reporting in AI studies involving CMR segmentation. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for AI CMR segmentation studies in April 2022. Any fully automated AI method for segmentation of cardiac chambers, myocardium or scar on CMR was considered for inclusion. For each study, compliance with the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) was assessed. The CLAIM criteria were grouped into study, dataset, model and performance description domains. RESULTS: 209 studies published between 2012 and 2022 were included in the analysis. Studies were mainly published in technical journals (58%), with the majority (57%) published since 2019. Studies were from 37 different countries, with most from China (26%), the United States (18%) and the United Kingdom (11%). Short axis CMR images were most frequently used (70%), with the left ventricle the most commonly segmented cardiac structure (49%). Median compliance of studies with CLAIM was 67% (IQR 59–73%). Median compliance was highest for the model description domain (100%, IQR 80–100%) and lower for the study (71%, IQR 63–86%), dataset (63%, IQR 50–67%) and performance (60%, IQR 50–70%) description domains. CONCLUSION: This systematic review highlights important gaps in the literature of CMR studies using AI. We identified key items missing—most strikingly poor description of patients included in the training and validation of AI models and inadequate model failure analysis—that limit the transparency, reproducibility and hence validity of published AI studies. This review may support closer adherence to established frameworks for reporting standards and presents recommendations for improving the quality of reporting in this field. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: [www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42022279214].
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9334661
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93346612022-07-30 Quality of reporting in AI cardiac MRI segmentation studies – A systematic review and recommendations for future studies Alabed, Samer Maiter, Ahmed Salehi, Mahan Mahmood, Aqeeb Daniel, Sonali Jenkins, Sam Goodlad, Marcus Sharkey, Michael Mamalakis, Michail Rakocevic, Vera Dwivedi, Krit Assadi, Hosamadin Wild, Jim M. Lu, Haiping O’Regan, Declan P. van der Geest, Rob J. Garg, Pankaj Swift, Andrew J. Front Cardiovasc Med Cardiovascular Medicine BACKGROUND: There has been a rapid increase in the number of Artificial Intelligence (AI) studies of cardiac MRI (CMR) segmentation aiming to automate image analysis. However, advancement and clinical translation in this field depend on researchers presenting their work in a transparent and reproducible manner. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the quality of reporting in AI studies involving CMR segmentation. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for AI CMR segmentation studies in April 2022. Any fully automated AI method for segmentation of cardiac chambers, myocardium or scar on CMR was considered for inclusion. For each study, compliance with the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) was assessed. The CLAIM criteria were grouped into study, dataset, model and performance description domains. RESULTS: 209 studies published between 2012 and 2022 were included in the analysis. Studies were mainly published in technical journals (58%), with the majority (57%) published since 2019. Studies were from 37 different countries, with most from China (26%), the United States (18%) and the United Kingdom (11%). Short axis CMR images were most frequently used (70%), with the left ventricle the most commonly segmented cardiac structure (49%). Median compliance of studies with CLAIM was 67% (IQR 59–73%). Median compliance was highest for the model description domain (100%, IQR 80–100%) and lower for the study (71%, IQR 63–86%), dataset (63%, IQR 50–67%) and performance (60%, IQR 50–70%) description domains. CONCLUSION: This systematic review highlights important gaps in the literature of CMR studies using AI. We identified key items missing—most strikingly poor description of patients included in the training and validation of AI models and inadequate model failure analysis—that limit the transparency, reproducibility and hence validity of published AI studies. This review may support closer adherence to established frameworks for reporting standards and presents recommendations for improving the quality of reporting in this field. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: [www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42022279214]. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-07-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9334661/ /pubmed/35911553 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.956811 Text en Copyright © 2022 Alabed, Maiter, Salehi, Mahmood, Daniel, Jenkins, Goodlad, Sharkey, Mamalakis, Rakocevic, Dwivedi, Assadi, Wild, Lu, O’Regan, van der Geest, Garg and Swift. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Cardiovascular Medicine
Alabed, Samer
Maiter, Ahmed
Salehi, Mahan
Mahmood, Aqeeb
Daniel, Sonali
Jenkins, Sam
Goodlad, Marcus
Sharkey, Michael
Mamalakis, Michail
Rakocevic, Vera
Dwivedi, Krit
Assadi, Hosamadin
Wild, Jim M.
Lu, Haiping
O’Regan, Declan P.
van der Geest, Rob J.
Garg, Pankaj
Swift, Andrew J.
Quality of reporting in AI cardiac MRI segmentation studies – A systematic review and recommendations for future studies
title Quality of reporting in AI cardiac MRI segmentation studies – A systematic review and recommendations for future studies
title_full Quality of reporting in AI cardiac MRI segmentation studies – A systematic review and recommendations for future studies
title_fullStr Quality of reporting in AI cardiac MRI segmentation studies – A systematic review and recommendations for future studies
title_full_unstemmed Quality of reporting in AI cardiac MRI segmentation studies – A systematic review and recommendations for future studies
title_short Quality of reporting in AI cardiac MRI segmentation studies – A systematic review and recommendations for future studies
title_sort quality of reporting in ai cardiac mri segmentation studies – a systematic review and recommendations for future studies
topic Cardiovascular Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9334661/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35911553
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.956811
work_keys_str_mv AT alabedsamer qualityofreportinginaicardiacmrisegmentationstudiesasystematicreviewandrecommendationsforfuturestudies
AT maiterahmed qualityofreportinginaicardiacmrisegmentationstudiesasystematicreviewandrecommendationsforfuturestudies
AT salehimahan qualityofreportinginaicardiacmrisegmentationstudiesasystematicreviewandrecommendationsforfuturestudies
AT mahmoodaqeeb qualityofreportinginaicardiacmrisegmentationstudiesasystematicreviewandrecommendationsforfuturestudies
AT danielsonali qualityofreportinginaicardiacmrisegmentationstudiesasystematicreviewandrecommendationsforfuturestudies
AT jenkinssam qualityofreportinginaicardiacmrisegmentationstudiesasystematicreviewandrecommendationsforfuturestudies
AT goodladmarcus qualityofreportinginaicardiacmrisegmentationstudiesasystematicreviewandrecommendationsforfuturestudies
AT sharkeymichael qualityofreportinginaicardiacmrisegmentationstudiesasystematicreviewandrecommendationsforfuturestudies
AT mamalakismichail qualityofreportinginaicardiacmrisegmentationstudiesasystematicreviewandrecommendationsforfuturestudies
AT rakocevicvera qualityofreportinginaicardiacmrisegmentationstudiesasystematicreviewandrecommendationsforfuturestudies
AT dwivedikrit qualityofreportinginaicardiacmrisegmentationstudiesasystematicreviewandrecommendationsforfuturestudies
AT assadihosamadin qualityofreportinginaicardiacmrisegmentationstudiesasystematicreviewandrecommendationsforfuturestudies
AT wildjimm qualityofreportinginaicardiacmrisegmentationstudiesasystematicreviewandrecommendationsforfuturestudies
AT luhaiping qualityofreportinginaicardiacmrisegmentationstudiesasystematicreviewandrecommendationsforfuturestudies
AT oregandeclanp qualityofreportinginaicardiacmrisegmentationstudiesasystematicreviewandrecommendationsforfuturestudies
AT vandergeestrobj qualityofreportinginaicardiacmrisegmentationstudiesasystematicreviewandrecommendationsforfuturestudies
AT gargpankaj qualityofreportinginaicardiacmrisegmentationstudiesasystematicreviewandrecommendationsforfuturestudies
AT swiftandrewj qualityofreportinginaicardiacmrisegmentationstudiesasystematicreviewandrecommendationsforfuturestudies