Li Yue, Liang Zhuang, Li Yingchun, Cao Yang, Zhang Hui, Dong Bo
Pain Ward of Rehabilitation Department, Honghui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi Province 710054, PR China.
Pain Ward of Rehabilitation Department, Honghui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi Province 710054, PR China.
Eur J Radiol. 2024 Dec;181:111714. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111714. Epub 2024 Sep 1.
To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of machine learning (ML) in detecting vertebral fractures, considering varying fracture classifications, patient populations, and imaging approaches.
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to December 31, 2023, for studies using ML for vertebral fracture diagnosis. Bias risk was assessed using QUADAS-2. A bivariate mixed-effects model was used for the meta-analysis. Meta-analyses were performed according to five task types (vertebral fractures, osteoporotic vertebral fractures, differentiation of benign and malignant vertebral fractures, differentiation of acute and chronic vertebral fractures, and prediction of vertebral fractures). Subgroup analyses were conducted by different ML models (including ML and DL) and modeling methods (including CT, X-ray, MRI, and clinical features).
Eighty-one studies were included. ML demonstrated a diagnostic sensitivity of 0.91 and specificity of 0.95 for vertebral fractures. Subgroup analysis showed that DL (SROC 0.98) and CT (SROC 0.98) performed best overall. For osteoporotic fractures, ML showed a sensitivity of 0.93 and specificity of 0.96, with DL (SROC 0.99) and X-ray (SROC 0.99) performing better. For differentiating benign from malignant fractures, ML achieved a sensitivity of 0.92 and specificity of 0.93, with DL (SROC 0.96) and MRI (SROC 0.97) performing best. For differentiating acute from chronic vertebral fractures, ML showed a sensitivity of 0.92 and specificity of 0.93, with ML (SROC 0.96) and CT (SROC 0.97) performing best. For predicting vertebral fractures, ML had a sensitivity of 0.76 and specificity of 0.87, with ML (SROC 0.80) and clinical features (SROC 0.86) performing better.
ML, especially DL models applied to CT, MRI, and X-ray, shows high diagnostic accuracy for vertebral fractures. ML also effectively predicts osteoporotic vertebral fractures, aiding in tailored prevention strategies. Further research and validation are required to confirm ML's clinical efficacy.
考虑不同的骨折分类、患者群体和成像方法,评估机器学习(ML)在检测椎体骨折方面的诊断准确性。
通过检索截至2023年12月31日的PubMed、Embase、Cochrane图书馆和Web of Science进行系统评价和荟萃分析,以查找使用ML进行椎体骨折诊断的研究。使用QUADAS-2评估偏倚风险。采用双变量混合效应模型进行荟萃分析。根据五种任务类型(椎体骨折、骨质疏松性椎体骨折、鉴别椎体良性和恶性骨折、鉴别椎体急性和慢性骨折以及预测椎体骨折)进行荟萃分析。通过不同的ML模型(包括ML和DL)和建模方法(包括CT、X射线、MRI和临床特征)进行亚组分析。
纳入81项研究。ML对椎体骨折的诊断敏感性为0.91,特异性为0.95。亚组分析表明,DL(SROC 0.98)和CT(SROC 0.98)总体表现最佳。对于骨质疏松性骨折,ML的敏感性为0.93,特异性为0.96,DL(SROC 0.99)和X射线(SROC 0.99)表现更好。对于鉴别良性与恶性骨折,ML的敏感性为0.92,特异性为0.93,DL(SROC 0.96)和MRI(SROC 于鉴别椎体急性和慢性骨折,ML的敏感性为0.92,特异性为0.93,ML(SROC 0.96)和CT(SROC 0.97)表现最佳。对于预测椎体骨折,ML的敏感性为0.76,特异性为0.87,ML(SROC 0.80)和临床特征(SROC 0.86)表现更好。
ML,尤其是应用于CT、MRI和X射线的DL模型,对椎体骨折显示出较高的诊断准确性。ML还能有效预测骨质疏松性椎体骨折,有助于制定针对性的预防策略。需要进一步的研究和验证来确认ML的临床疗效。