Artificial Intelligence and Acute Appendicitis : A Systematic Review of Diagnostic and Prognostic Models
© 2023. The Author(s)..
BACKGROUND: To assess the efficacy of artificial intelligence (AI) models in diagnosing and prognosticating acute appendicitis (AA) in adult patients compared to traditional methods. AA is a common cause of emergency department visits and abdominal surgeries. It is typically diagnosed through clinical assessments, laboratory tests, and imaging studies. However, traditional diagnostic methods can be time-consuming and inaccurate. Machine learning models have shown promise in improving diagnostic accuracy and predicting outcomes.
MAIN BODY: A systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines was conducted, searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Studies were evaluated for risk of bias using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Data points extracted included model type, input features, validation strategies, and key performance metrics.
RESULTS: In total, 29 studies were analyzed, out of which 21 focused on diagnosis, seven on prognosis, and one on both. Artificial neural networks (ANNs) were the most commonly employed algorithm for diagnosis. Both ANN and logistic regression were also widely used for categorizing types of AA. ANNs showed high performance in most cases, with accuracy rates often exceeding 80% and AUC values peaking at 0.985. The models also demonstrated promising results in predicting postoperative outcomes such as sepsis risk and ICU admission. Risk of bias was identified in a majority of studies, with selection bias and lack of internal validation being the most common issues.
CONCLUSION: AI algorithms demonstrate significant promise in diagnosing and prognosticating AA, often surpassing traditional methods and clinical scores such as the Alvarado scoring system in terms of speed and accuracy.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2023 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2023 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:18 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
World journal of emergency surgery : WJES - 18(2023), 1 vom: 19. Dez., Seite 59 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Issaiy, Mahbod [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
AI |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 21.12.2023 Date Revised 23.12.2023 published: Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1186/s13017-023-00527-2 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM366056522 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM366056522 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231227140411.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231227s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s13017-023-00527-2 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1236.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM366056522 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)38114983 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Issaiy, Mahbod |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Artificial Intelligence and Acute Appendicitis |b A Systematic Review of Diagnostic and Prognostic Models |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 21.12.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 23.12.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2023. The Author(s). | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND: To assess the efficacy of artificial intelligence (AI) models in diagnosing and prognosticating acute appendicitis (AA) in adult patients compared to traditional methods. AA is a common cause of emergency department visits and abdominal surgeries. It is typically diagnosed through clinical assessments, laboratory tests, and imaging studies. However, traditional diagnostic methods can be time-consuming and inaccurate. Machine learning models have shown promise in improving diagnostic accuracy and predicting outcomes | ||
| 520 | |a MAIN BODY: A systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines was conducted, searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Studies were evaluated for risk of bias using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Data points extracted included model type, input features, validation strategies, and key performance metrics | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: In total, 29 studies were analyzed, out of which 21 focused on diagnosis, seven on prognosis, and one on both. Artificial neural networks (ANNs) were the most commonly employed algorithm for diagnosis. Both ANN and logistic regression were also widely used for categorizing types of AA. ANNs showed high performance in most cases, with accuracy rates often exceeding 80% and AUC values peaking at 0.985. The models also demonstrated promising results in predicting postoperative outcomes such as sepsis risk and ICU admission. Risk of bias was identified in a majority of studies, with selection bias and lack of internal validation being the most common issues | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSION: AI algorithms demonstrate significant promise in diagnosing and prognosticating AA, often surpassing traditional methods and clinical scores such as the Alvarado scoring system in terms of speed and accuracy | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Systematic Review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a AI | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Acute appendicitis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Deep learning | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Machine learning | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Systematic review | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zarei, Diana |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Saghazadeh, Amene |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t World journal of emergency surgery : WJES |d 2006 |g 18(2023), 1 vom: 19. Dez., Seite 59 |w (DE-627)NLM163368589 |x 1749-7922 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:18 |g year:2023 |g number:1 |g day:19 |g month:12 |g pages:59 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13017-023-00527-2 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 18 |j 2023 |e 1 |b 19 |c 12 |h 59 | ||