Abstract

The accurate detection and precise segmentation of lung nodules on computed tomography are key prerequisites for early diagnosis and appropriate treatment of lung cancer. This study was designed to compare detection and segmentation methods for pulmonary nodules using deep-learning techniques to fill methodological gaps and biases in the existing literature. This study utilized a systematic review with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Library databases up to May 10, 2023. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 criteria was used to assess the risk of bias and was adjusted with the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging. The study analyzed and extracted model performance, data sources, and task-focus information. After screening, we included nine studies meeting our inclusion criteria. These studies were published between 2019 and 2023 and predominantly used public datasets, with the Lung Image Database Consortium Image Collection and Image Database Resource Initiative and Lung Nodule Analysis 2016 being the most common. The studies focused on detection, segmentation, and other tasks, primarily utilizing Convolutional Neural Networks for model development. Performance evaluation covered multiple metrics, including sensitivity and the Dice coefficient. This study highlights the potential power of deep learning in lung nodule detection and segmentation. It underscores the importance of standardized data processing, code and data sharing, the value of external test datasets, and the need to balance model complexity and efficiency in future research. Deep learning demonstrates significant promise in autonomously detecting and segmenting pulmonary nodules. Future research should address methodological shortcomings and variability to enhance its clinical utility. Deep learning shows potential in the detection and segmentation of pulmonary nodules. There are methodological gaps and biases present in the existing literature. Factors such as external validation and transparency affect the clinical application.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.