Back

Artificial Intelligence Algorithms in Nailfold Capillaroscopy Image Analysis: A Systematic Review

Emam, O. S.; Ebadi Jalal, M.; Garcia-Zapirain, B.; Elmaghraby, A.

2024-07-29 rheumatology
10.1101/2024.07.28.24311154 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundNon-invasive imaging modalities offer a great deal of clinically significant information that aid in the diagnosis of various medical conditions. Coupled with the never-before-seen capabilities of Artificial Intelligence (AI), uncharted territories that offer novel innovative diagnostics are reached. This systematic review compiled all studies that utilized AI in Nailfold Capillaroscopy as a future diagnostic tool. Methods and FindingsFive databases for medical publications were searched using the keywords artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep learning and nailfold capillaroscopy to return 105 studies. After applying the eligibility criteria, 10 studies were selected for the final analysis. Data was extracted into tables that addressed population characteristics, AI model development and nature and results of their respective performance. We found supervised deep learning approaches to be the most commonly used (n = 8). Systemic Sclerosis was the most commonly studied disease (n = 6). Sample size ranged from 17,126 images obtained from 289 participants to 50 images from 50 participants. Ground truth was determined either by experts labelling (n = 6) or known clinical status (n = 4). Significant variation was noticed in model training, testing and feature extraction, and therefore the reporting of model performance. Recall, precision and Area Under the Curve were the most used metrics to report model performance. Execution times ranged from 0.064 to 120 seconds per image. Only two models offered future predictions besides the diagnostic output. ConclusionsAI has demonstrated a truly remarkable potential in the interpretation of Nailfold Capillaroscopy by providing physicians with an intelligent decision-supportive tool for improved diagnostics and prediction. With more validation studies, this potential can be translated to daily clinical practice.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
35.0%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 7%
9.7%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 20%
8.9%
50% of probability mass above
4
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.1%
5
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.2%
6
Rheumatology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.8%
7
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.0%
8
Arthritis & Rheumatology
33 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
9
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
10
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.6%
11
Journal of Medical Virology
137 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
12
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.3%
13
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
14
Biomedicines
66 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
15
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 58%
1.0%
16
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.0%
17
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
18
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
19
RMD Open
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
20
Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
21
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
22
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.7%
23
European Journal of Neuroscience
168 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
24
Patterns
70 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
25
Metabolites
50 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%