Trends in Development of Novel Machine Learning Methods for the Identification of Gliomas in Datasets That Include Non-Glioma Images: A Systematic Review

Abstract

PurposeMachine learning has been applied to the diagnostic imaging of gliomas to augment classification, prognostication, segmentation, and treatment planning. A systematic literature review was performed to identify how machine learning has been applied to identify gliomas in datasets which include non-glioma images thereby simulating normal clinical practice.Materials and MethodsFour databases were searched by a medical librarian and confirmed by a second librarian for all articles published prior to February 1, 2021: Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science-Core Collection. The search strategy included both keywords and controlled vocabulary combining the terms for: artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep learning, radiomics, magnetic resonance imaging, glioma, as well as related terms. The review was conducted in stepwise fashion with abstract screening, full text screening, and data extraction. Quality of reporting was assessed using TRIPOD criteria.ResultsA total of 11,727 candidate articles were identified, of which 12 articles were included in the final analysis. Studies investigated the differentiation of normal from abnormal images in datasets which include gliomas (7 articles) and the differentiation of glioma images from non-glioma or normal images (5 articles). Single institution datasets were most common (5 articles) followed by BRATS (3 articles). The median sample size was 280 patients. Algorithm testing strategies consisted of five-fold cross validation (5 articles), and the use of exclusive sets of images within the same dataset for training and for testing (7 articles). Neural networks were the most common type of algorithm (10 articles). The accuracy of algorithms ranged from 0.75 to 1.00 (median 0.96, 10 articles). Quality of reporting assessment utilizing TRIPOD criteria yielded a mean individual TRIPOD ratio of 0.50 (standard deviation 0.14, range 0.37 to 0.85).ConclusionSystematic review investigating the identification of gliomas in datasets which include non-glioma images demonstrated multiple limitations hindering the application of these algorithms to clinical practice. These included limited datasets, a lack of generalizable algorithm training and testing strategies, and poor quality of reporting. The development of more robust and heterogeneous datasets is needed for algorithm development. Future studies would benefit from using external datasets for algorithm testing as well as placing increased attention on quality of reporting standards.Systematic Review Registrationwww.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020209938, International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020209938).