Artificial intelligence applied to magnetic resonance imaging reliably detects the presence, but not the location, of meniscus tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectivesTo review and compare the accuracy of convolutional neural networks (CNN) for the diagnosis of meniscal tears in the current literature and analyze the decision-making processes utilized by these CNN algorithms.Materials and methodsPubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases up to December 2022 were searched in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. Risk of analysis was used for all identified articles. Predictive performance values, including sensitivity and specificity, were extracted for quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis was divided between AI prediction models identifying the presence of meniscus tears and the location of meniscus tears.ResultsEleven articles were included in the final review, with a total of 13,467 patients and 57,551 images. Heterogeneity was statistically significantly large for the sensitivity of the tear identification analysis (I2 = 79%). A higher level of accuracy was observed in identifying the presence of a meniscal tear over locating tears in specific regions of the meniscus (AUC, 0.939 vs 0.905). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-0.91) and 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.93) for meniscus tear identification and 0.88 (95% CI 0.82-0.91) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.81-0.85) for locating the tears.ConclusionsAI prediction models achieved favorable performance in the diagnosis, but not location, of meniscus tears. Further studies on the clinical utilities of deep learning should include standardized reporting, external validation, and full reports of the predictive performances of these models, with a view to localizing tears more accurately.Clinical relevance statementMeniscus tears are hard to diagnose in the knee magnetic resonance images. AI prediction models may play an important role in improving the diagnostic accuracy of clinicians and radiologists.Key Points center dot Artificial intelligence (AI) provides great potential in improving the diagnosis of meniscus tears.center dot The pooled diagnostic performance for artificial intelligence (AI) in identifying meniscus tears was better (sensitivity 87%, specificity 89%) than locating the tears (sensitivity 88%, specificity 84%).center dot AI is good at confirming the diagnosis of meniscus tears, but future work is required to guide the management of the disease.Key Points center dot Artificial intelligence (AI) provides great potential in improving the diagnosis of meniscus tears.center dot The pooled diagnostic performance for artificial intelligence (AI) in identifying meniscus tears was better (sensitivity 87%, specificity 89%) than locating the tears (sensitivity 88%, specificity 84%).center dot AI is good at confirming the diagnosis of meniscus tears, but future work is required to guide the management of the disease.Key Points center dot Artificial intelligence (AI) provides great potential in improving the diagnosis of meniscus tears.center dot The pooled diagnostic performance for artificial intelligence (AI) in identifying meniscus tears was better (sensitivity 87%, specificity 89%) than locating the tears (sensitivity 88%, specificity 84%).center dot AI is good at confirming the diagnosis of meniscus tears, but future work is required to guide the management of the disease.