Machine Learning and Deep Learning for Diagnosis of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a major cause of pain and disability in older individuals worldwide. Although increasing studies of traditional machine learning (TML) and deep learning (DL) were conducted in the field of diagnosing LSS and gained prominent results, the performance of these models has not been analyzed systematically.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to pool the results and evaluate the heterogeneity of the current studies in using TML or DL models to diagnose LSS, thereby providing more comprehensive information for further clinical application.

METHODS

This review was performed under the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using articles extracted from PubMed, Embase databases, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies that evaluated DL or TML algorithms assessment value on diagnosing LSS were included, while those with duplicated or unavailable data were excluded. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 was used to estimate the risk of bias in each study. The MIDAS module and the METAPROP module of Stata (StataCorp) were used for data synthesis and statistical analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies with 15,044 patients reported the assessment value of TML or DL models for diagnosing LSS. The risk of bias assessment yielded 4 studies with high risk of bias, 3 with unclear risk of bias, and 5 with completely low risk of bias. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.84 (95% CI: 0.82-0.86; I=99.06%) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.84-0.90; I=98.7%), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio was 36 (95% CI 26-49), the positive likelihood ratio (LR+) was 6.6 (95% CI 5.1-8.4), and the negative likelihood ratio (LR-) was 0.18 (95% CI 0.16-0.21). The summary receiver operating characteristic curves, the area under the curve of TML or DL models for diagnosing LSS of 0.92 (95% CI 0.89-0.94), indicating a high diagnostic value.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis emphasize that despite the generally satisfactory diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence systems in the experimental stage for the diagnosis of LSS, none of them is reliable and practical enough to apply in real clinical practice. Further efforts, including optimization of model balance, widely accepted objective reference standards, multimodal strategy, large dataset for training and testing, external validation, and sufficient and scientific report, should be made to bridge the distance between current TML or DL models and real-life clinical applications in future studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42024566535; https://tinyurl.com/msx59x8k.