The use of machine learning and deep learning algorithms in functional magnetic resonance imaging—A systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mamoon Rashid ◽  
Harjeet Singh ◽  
Vishal Goyal
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Machine Learning ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Deep Learning ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Learning Algorithms ◽  
Functional Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Resonance Imaging

scholarly journals How Does Our Brain Process Sugars and Non-Nutritive Sweeteners Differently: A Systematic Review on Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies

Nutrients ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. 3010
Author(s):  
Andy Wai Kan Yeung ◽  
Natalie Sui Miu Wong
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Brain Regions ◽  
Functional Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Imaging Studies ◽  
Brain Responses ◽  
Fasting Duration

This systematic review aimed to reveal the differential brain processing of sugars and sweeteners in humans. Functional magnetic resonance imaging studies published up to 2019 were retrieved from two databases and were included into the review if they evaluated the effects of both sugars and sweeteners on the subjects’ brain responses, during tasting and right after ingestion. Twenty studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The number of participants per study ranged from 5 to 42, with a total number of study participants at 396. Seven studies recruited both males and females, 7 were all-female and 6 were all-male. There was no consistent pattern showing that sugar or sweeteners elicited larger brain responses. Commonly involved brain regions were insula/operculum, cingulate and striatum, brainstem, hypothalamus and the ventral tegmental area. Future studies, therefore, should recruit a larger sample size, adopt a standardized fasting duration (preferably 12 h overnight, which is the most common practice and brain responses are larger in the state of hunger), and reported results with familywise-error rate (FWE)-corrected statistics. Every study should report the differential brain activation between sugar and non-nutritive sweetener conditions regardless of the complexity of their experiment design. These measures would enable a meta-analysis, pooling data across studies in a meaningful manner.

scholarly journals Accuracy of Machine Learning Algorithms for the Diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies

10.2196/14108 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
pp. e14108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sun Jae Moon ◽  
Jinseub Hwang ◽  
Rajesh Kana ◽  
John Torous ◽  
Jung Won Kim
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Machine Learning ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Learning Algorithms ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Machine Learning Algorithms ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Accuracy Measures

Background In the recent years, machine learning algorithms have been more widely and increasingly applied in biomedical fields. In particular, their application has been drawing more attention in the field of psychiatry, for instance, as diagnostic tests/tools for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, given their complexity and potential clinical implications, there is an ongoing need for further research on their accuracy. Objective This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the available evidence for the accuracy of machine learning algorithms in diagnosing ASD. Methods The following databases were searched on November 28, 2018: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Complete (with Open Dissertations), PsycINFO, and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore Digital Library. Studies that used a machine learning algorithm partially or fully for distinguishing individuals with ASD from control subjects and provided accuracy measures were included in our analysis. The bivariate random effects model was applied to the pooled data in a meta-analysis. A subgroup analysis was used to investigate and resolve the source of heterogeneity between studies. True-positive, false-positive, false-negative, and true-negative values from individual studies were used to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity values, draw Summary Receiver Operating Characteristics curves, and obtain the area under the curve (AUC) and partial AUC (pAUC). Results A total of 43 studies were included for the final analysis, of which a meta-analysis was performed on 40 studies (53 samples with 12,128 participants). A structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI) subgroup meta-analysis (12 samples with 1776 participants) showed a sensitivity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.76-0.89), a specificity of 0.84 (95% CI 0.74-0.91), and AUC/pAUC of 0.90/0.83. A functional magnetic resonance imaging/deep neural network subgroup meta-analysis (5 samples with 1345 participants) showed a sensitivity of 0.69 (95% CI 0.62-0.75), specificity of 0.66 (95% CI 0.61-0.70), and AUC/pAUC of 0.71/0.67. Conclusions The accuracy of machine learning algorithms for diagnosis of ASD was considered acceptable by few accuracy measures only in cases of sMRI use; however, given the many limitations indicated in our study, further well-designed studies are warranted to extend the potential use of machine learning algorithms to clinical settings. Trial Registration PROSPERO CRD42018117779; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=117779

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document