Accuracy of machine learning models for pre-diagnosis and diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in contrast-CT images: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Authors
Affiliations (5)
Affiliations (5)
- Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil. [email protected].
- Brazilian Center for Evidence-Based Research, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil. [email protected].
- Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
- Brazilian Center for Evidence-Based Research, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
- Radiology Department, Ultralitho Centro Médico, Florianópolis, Brazil.
Abstract
To evaluate the diagnostic ability and methodological quality of ML models in detecting Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in Contrast CT images. Included studies assessed adults diagnosed with PDAC, confirmed by histopathology. Metrics of tests were interpreted by ML algorithms. Studies provided data on sensitivity and specificity. Studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria, segmentation-focused studies, multiple classifiers or non-diagnostic studies were excluded. PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase were searched without restrictions. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2, methodological quality was evaluated using Radiomics Quality Score (RQS) and a Checklist for AI in Medical Imaging (CLAIM). Bivariate random-effects models were used for meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity, I<sup>2</sup> values and subgroup analysis used to assess heterogeneity. Nine studies were included and 12,788 participants were evaluated, of which 3,997 were included in the meta-analysis. AI models based on CT scans showed an accuracy of 88.7% (IC 95%, 87.7%-89.7%), sensitivity of 87.9% (95% CI, 82.9%-91.6%), and specificity of 92.2% (95% CI, 86.8%-95.5%). The average score of six radiomics studies was 17.83 RQS points. Nine ML methods had an average CLAIM score of 30.55 points. Our study is the first to quantitatively interpret various independent research, offering insights for clinical application. Despite favorable sensitivity and specificity results, the studies were of low quality, limiting definitive conclusions. Further research is necessary to validate these models before widespread adoption.