Evidence Hub

Machine learning in point-of-care automated classification of oral potentially malignant and malignant disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ferro A, Kotecha S, Fan K

Scientific reports, 2022

14 citations

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) algorithms are becoming increasingly pervasive in the domains of medical diagnostics and prognostication, afforded by complex deep learning architectures that overcome the limitations of manual feature extraction. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we provide an update on current progress of ML algorithms in point-of-care (POC) automated diagnostic classification systems for lesions of the oral cavity. Studies reporting performance metrics on ML algorithms used in automatic classification of oral regions of interest were identified and screened by 2 independent reviewers from 4 databases. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. 35 studies were suitable for qualitative synthesis, and 31 for quantitative analysis. Outcomes were assessed using a bivariate random-effects model following an assessment of bias and heterogeneity. 4 distinct methodologies were identified for POC diagnosis: (1) clinical photography; (2) optical imaging; (3) thermal imaging; (4) analysis of volatile organic compounds. Estimated AUROC across all studies was 0.935, and no difference in performance was identified between methodologies. We discuss the various classical and modern approaches to ML employed within identified studies, and highlight issues that will need to be addressed for implementation of automated classification systems in screening and early detection.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free