Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Aug 8;16(8):e66453.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.66453. eCollection 2024 Aug.

Advancements in Cholelithiasis Diagnosis: A Systematic Review of Machine Learning Applications in Imaging Analysis

Affiliations
Review

Advancements in Cholelithiasis Diagnosis: A Systematic Review of Machine Learning Applications in Imaging Analysis

Almegdad S Ahmed et al. Cureus. .

Abstract

Gallstone disease is a common condition affecting a substantial number of individuals globally. The risk factors for gallstones include obesity, rapid weight loss, diabetes, and genetic predisposition. Gallstones can lead to serious complications such as calculous cholecystitis, cholangitis, biliary pancreatitis, and an increased risk for gallbladder (GB) cancer. Abdominal ultrasound (US) is the primary diagnostic method due to its affordability and high sensitivity, while computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) offer higher sensitivity and specificity. This review assesses the diagnostic accuracy of machine learning (ML) technologies in detecting gallstones. This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. An electronic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Embase, covering literature up to April 2024, focusing on human studies, and including all relevant keywords. Various Boolean operators and Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms were used. Additionally, reference lists were manually screened. The review included all study designs and performance indicators but excluded studies not involving artificial intelligence (AI)/ML algorithms, non-imaging diagnostic modalities, microscopic images, other diseases, editorials, commentaries, reviews, and studies with incomplete data. Data extraction covered study characteristics, imaging modalities, ML architectures, training/testing/validation, performance metrics, reference standards, and reported advantages and drawbacks of the diagnostic models. The electronic search yielded 1,002 records, of which 34 underwent full-text screening, resulting in the inclusion of seven studies. An additional study identified through citation searching brought the total to eight articles. Most studies employed a retrospective cross-sectional design, except for one prospective study. Imaging modalities included ultrasonography (four studies), computed tomography (three studies), and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (one study). Patient numbers ranged from 60 to 2,386, and image numbers ranged from 60 to 17,560 images included in the training, validation, and testing of the diagnostic models. All studies utilized neural networks, predominantly convolutional neural networks (CNNs). Expert radiologists served as the reference standard for image labelling, and model performances were compared against human doctors or other algorithms. Performance indicators such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were commonly used. In conclusion, while the reviewed machine learning models show promising performance in diagnosing gallstones, significant work remains to be done to ensure their reliability and generalizability across diverse clinical settings. The potential for these models to improve diagnostic accuracy and efficiency is evident, but the careful consideration of their limitations and rigorous validation are essential steps toward their successful integration into clinical practice.

Keywords: cholelithiasis; diagnostic models; gallstone disease; imaging analysis; machine learning.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart of the study selection process
PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; AI, artificial intelligence; ML, machine learning

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Gallstones. Lammert F, Gurusamy K, Ko CW, et al. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016;2:16024. - PubMed
    1. Cholesterol gallstone disease. Portincasa P, Moschetta A, Palasciano G. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(06)69044.... Lancet. 2006;368:230–239. - PubMed
    1. Symptomatic and silent gall stones in the community. Heaton KW, Braddon FE, Mountford RA, Hughes AO, Emmett PM. https://gut.bmj.com/content/32/3/316. Gut. 1991;32:316–320. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Epidemiology and risk factors for gallstone disease: has the paradigm changed in the 21st century? Shaffer EA. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2005;7:132–140. - PubMed
    1. Diagnostic accuracy of updated risk assessment criteria and development of novel computational prediction models for patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. Zhang H, Gao J, Sun Z, et al. Surg Endosc. 2023;37:7348–7357. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources