Machine learning algorithms to predict the risk of rupture of intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review

Purpose: Subarachnoid haemorrhage is a potentially fatal consequence of intracranial aneurysm rupture, however, it is difficult to predict if aneurysms will rupture. Prophylactic treatment of an intracranial aneurysm also involves risk, hence identifying rupture-prone aneurysms is of substantial clinical importance. This systematic review aims to evaluate the performance of machine learning algorithms for predicting intracranial aneurysm rupture risk. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched until December 2023. Studies incorporating any machine learning algorithm to predict the risk of rupture of an intracranial aneurysm were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). PROSPERO registration: CRD42023452509. Results: Out of 10,307 records screened, 20 studies met the eligibility criteria for this review incorporating a total of 20,286 aneurysm cases. The machine learning models gave a 0.66-0.90 range for performance accuracy. The models were compared to current clinical standards in six studies and gave mixed results. Most studies posed high or unclear risks of bias and concerns for applicability, limiting the inferences that can be drawn from them. There was insufficient homogenous data for a meta-analysis. Conclusions: Machine learning can be applied to predict the risk of rupture for intracranial aneurysms. However, the evidence does not comprehensively demonstrate superiority to existing practice, limiting its role as a clinical adjunct. Further prospective multicentre studies of recent machine learning tools are needed to prove clinical validation before they are implemented in the clinic.

Artificial intelligence for abnormality detection in high volume neuroimaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose: Most studies evaluating artificial intelligence (AI) models that detect abnormalities in neuroimaging are either tested on unrepresentative patient cohorts or are insufficiently well-validated, leading to poor generalisability to real-world tasks. The aim was to determine the diagnostic test accuracy and summarise the evidence supporting the use of AI models performing first-line, high-volume neuroimaging tasks. Methods: Medline, Embase, Cochrane library and Web of Science were searched until September 2021 for studies that temporally or externally validated AI capable of detecting abnormalities in first-line CT or MR neuroimaging. A bivariate random-effects model was used for meta-analysis where appropriate. PROSPERO: CRD42021269563. Results: Only 16 studies were eligible for inclusion. Included studies were not compromised by unrepresentative datasets or inadequate validation methodology. Direct comparison with radiologists was available in 4/16 studies. 15/16 had a high risk of bias. Meta-analysis was only suitable for intracranial haemorrhage detection in CT imaging (10/16 studies), where AI systems had a pooled sensitivity and specificity 0.90 (95% CI 0.85 - 0.94) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.83 - 0.95) respectively. Other AI studies using CT and MRI detected target conditions other than haemorrhage (2/16), or multiple target conditions (4/16). Only 3/16 studies implemented AI in clinical pathways, either for pre-read triage or as post-read discrepancy identifiers. Conclusion: The paucity of eligible studies reflects that most abnormality detection AI studies were not adequately validated in representative clinical cohorts. The few studies describing how abnormality detection AI could impact patients and clinicians did not explore the full ramifications of clinical implementation.