↓ Skip to main content

Analysis of computer-aided diagnostics in the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Insights into Imaging, February 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Analysis of computer-aided diagnostics in the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer: a systematic review
Published in
Insights into Imaging, February 2023
DOI 10.1186/s13244-022-01345-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna H. Koch, Lara S. Jeelof, Caroline L. P. Muntinga, T. A. Gootzen, Nienke M. A. van de Kruis, Joost Nederend, Tim Boers, Fons van der Sommen, Jurgen M. J. Piek

Abstract

Different noninvasive imaging methods to predict the chance of malignancy of ovarian tumors are available. However, their predictive value is limited due to subjectivity of the reviewer. Therefore, more objective prediction models are needed. Computer-aided diagnostics (CAD) could be such a model, since it lacks bias that comes with currently used models. In this study, we evaluated the available data on CAD in predicting the chance of malignancy of ovarian tumors. We searched for all published studies investigating diagnostic accuracy of CAD based on ultrasound, CT and MRI in pre-surgical patients with an ovarian tumor compared to reference standards. In thirty-one included studies, extracted features from three different imaging techniques were used in different mathematical models. All studies assessed CAD based on machine learning on ultrasound, CT scan and MRI scan images. Per imaging method, subsequently ultrasound, CT and MRI, sensitivities ranged from 40.3 to 100%; 84.6-100% and 66.7-100% and specificities ranged from 76.3-100%; 69-100% and 77.8-100%. Results could not be pooled, due to broad heterogeneity. Although the majority of studies report high performances, they are at considerable risk of overfitting due to the absence of an independent test set. Based on this literature review, different CAD for ultrasound, CT scans and MRI scans seem promising to aid physicians in assessing ovarian tumors through their objective and potentially cost-effective character. However, performance should be evaluated per imaging technique. Prospective and larger datasets with external validation are desired to make their results generalizable.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 13 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Computer Science 2 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 12 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 May 2023.
All research outputs
#15,941,663
of 24,262,436 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#680
of 1,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,801
of 480,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#24
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,262,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,075 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 480,462 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.