TY - JOUR
T1 - Traditional Machine Learning Methods versus Deep Learning for Meningioma Classification, Grading, Outcome Prediction, and Segmentation
T2 - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
AU - Maniar, Krish M.
AU - Lassarén, Philipp
AU - Rana, Aakanksha
AU - Yao, Yuxin
AU - Tewarie, Ishaan A.
AU - Gerstl, Jakob V.E.
AU - Recio Blanco, Camila M.
AU - Power, Liam H.
AU - Mammi, Marco
AU - Mattie, Heather
AU - Smith, Timothy R.
AU - Mekary, Rania A.
N1 - Funding Information:
Conflict of interest statement: P. Lassarén acknowledges funding from the Swedish Brain Foundation ( #FO2019-0006 ) for a laptop. The funders had no role in the design or conduct of this research. The remaining authors have no conflicts to report.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2023/11
Y1 - 2023/11
N2 - Background: Meningiomas are common intracranial tumors. Machine learning (ML) algorithms are emerging to improve accuracy in 4 primary domains: classification, grading, outcome prediction, and segmentation. Such algorithms include both traditional approaches that rely on hand-crafted features and deep learning (DL) techniques that utilize automatic feature extraction. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of published traditional ML versus DL algorithms in classification, grading, outcome prediction, and segmentation of meningiomas. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Major databases were searched through September 2021 for publications evaluating traditional ML versus DL models on meningioma management. Performance measures including pooled sensitivity, specificity, F1-score, area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+, LR−) along with their respective 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were derived using random-effects models. Results: Five hundred thirty-four records were screened, and 43 articles were included, regarding classification (3 articles), grading (29), outcome prediction (7), and segmentation (6) of meningiomas. Of the 29 studies that reported on grading, 10 could be meta-analyzed with 2 DL models (sensitivity 0.89, 95% CI: 0.74–0.96; specificity 0.91, 95% CI: 0.45–0.99; LR+ 10.1, 95% CI: 1.33–137; LR− 0.12, 95% CI: 0.04–0.59) and 8 traditional ML (sensitivity 0.74, 95% CI: 0.62–0.83; specificity 0.93, 95% CI: 0.79–0.98; LR+ 10.5, 95% CI: 2.91–39.5; and LR− 0.28, 95% CI: 0.17–0.49). The insufficient performance metrics reported precluded further statistical analysis of other performance metrics. Conclusions:ML on meningiomas is mostly carried out with traditional methods. For meningioma grading, traditional ML methods generally had a higher LR+, while DL models a lower LR−.
AB - Background: Meningiomas are common intracranial tumors. Machine learning (ML) algorithms are emerging to improve accuracy in 4 primary domains: classification, grading, outcome prediction, and segmentation. Such algorithms include both traditional approaches that rely on hand-crafted features and deep learning (DL) techniques that utilize automatic feature extraction. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of published traditional ML versus DL algorithms in classification, grading, outcome prediction, and segmentation of meningiomas. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Major databases were searched through September 2021 for publications evaluating traditional ML versus DL models on meningioma management. Performance measures including pooled sensitivity, specificity, F1-score, area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+, LR−) along with their respective 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were derived using random-effects models. Results: Five hundred thirty-four records were screened, and 43 articles were included, regarding classification (3 articles), grading (29), outcome prediction (7), and segmentation (6) of meningiomas. Of the 29 studies that reported on grading, 10 could be meta-analyzed with 2 DL models (sensitivity 0.89, 95% CI: 0.74–0.96; specificity 0.91, 95% CI: 0.45–0.99; LR+ 10.1, 95% CI: 1.33–137; LR− 0.12, 95% CI: 0.04–0.59) and 8 traditional ML (sensitivity 0.74, 95% CI: 0.62–0.83; specificity 0.93, 95% CI: 0.79–0.98; LR+ 10.5, 95% CI: 2.91–39.5; and LR− 0.28, 95% CI: 0.17–0.49). The insufficient performance metrics reported precluded further statistical analysis of other performance metrics. Conclusions:ML on meningiomas is mostly carried out with traditional methods. For meningioma grading, traditional ML methods generally had a higher LR+, while DL models a lower LR−.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85169882658&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.08.023
DO - 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.08.023
M3 - Article
C2 - 37574189
AN - SCOPUS:85169882658
SN - 1878-8750
VL - 179
SP - e119-e134
JO - World Neurosurgery
JF - World Neurosurgery
ER -