Highly-automated computer-aided diagnosis of neurological disorders using functional brain imaging

Author(s):  
P. G. Spetsieris ◽  
Y. Ma ◽  
V. Dhawan ◽  
J. R. Moeller ◽  
D. Eidelberg
Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 393
Author(s):  
Mahsa Mansourian ◽  
Sadaf Khademi ◽  
Hamid Reza Marateb

The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests that mental disorders, neurological disorders, and suicide are growing causes of morbidity. Depressive disorders, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, Alzheimer’s disease, and other dementias account for 1.84%, 0.60%, 0.33%, and 1.00% of total Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs). Furthermore, suicide, the 15th leading cause of death worldwide, could be linked to mental disorders. More than 68 computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) methods published in peer-reviewed journals from 2016 to 2021 were analyzed, among which 75% were published in the year 2018 or later. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol was adopted to select the relevant studies. In addition to the gold standard, the sample size, neuroimaging techniques or biomarkers, validation frameworks, the classifiers, and the performance indices were analyzed. We further discussed how various performance indices are essential based on the biostatistical and data mining perspective. Moreover, critical information related to the Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines was analyzed. We discussed how balancing the dataset and not using external validation could hinder the generalization of the CAD methods. We provided the list of the critical issues to consider in such studies.


1972 ◽  
Vol 11 (01) ◽  
pp. 32-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. T. DE DOMBAL ◽  
J. C. HORROCKS ◽  
J. R. STANILAND ◽  
P. J. GUILLOU

This paper describes a series of 10,500 attempts at »pattern-recognition« by two groups of humans and a computer based system. There was little difference between the performances of 11 clinicians and 11 other persons of comparable intellectual capability. Both groups’ performances were related to the pattern-size, the accuracy diminishing rapidly as the patterns grew larger. By contrast the computer system increased its accuracy as the patterns increased in size.It is suggested (a) that clinicians are very little better than others at pattem-recognition, (b) that the clinician is incapable of analysing on a probabilistic basis the data he collects during a traditional clinical interview and examination and (c) that the study emphasises once again a major difference between human and computer performance. The implications as - regards human- and computer-aided diagnosis are discussed.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Kashin ◽  
R Kuvaev ◽  
E Kraynova ◽  
H Edelsbrunner ◽  
O Dunaeva ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document