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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |