SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence-assisted PET imaging for Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

NPJ Digit Med · 2024-01-22

DOI: 10.1038/s41746-024-01012-zPMID: 38253738

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted PET imaging is emerging as a promising tool for the diagnosis of Parkinson's disease (PD). We aim to systematically review the diagnostic accuracy of AI-assisted PET in detecting PD. The Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore databases were systematically searched for related studies that developed an AI algorithm in PET imaging for diagnostic performance from PD and were published by August 17, 2023. Binary diagnostic accuracy data were extracted for meta-analysis to derive outcomes of interest: area under the curve (AUC). 23 eligible studies provided sufficient data to construct contingency tables that allowed the calculation of diagnostic accuracy. Specifically, 11 studies were identified that distinguished PD from normal control, with a pooled AUC of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.97) for presynaptic dopamine (DA) and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.93) for glucose metabolism (18F-FDG). 13 studies were identified that distinguished PD from the atypical parkinsonism (AP), with a pooled AUC of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91 - 0.95) for presynaptic DA, 0.79 (95% CI: 0.75-0.82) for postsynaptic DA, and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96-0.99) for 18F-FDG. Acceptable diagnostic performance of PD with AI algorithms-assisted PET imaging was highlighted across the subgroups. More rigorous reporting standards that take into account the unique challenges of AI research could improve future studies.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.