Системы поддержки принятия решений в диагностике урологических заболеваний

Необходимость обработки большого объема данных привела к созданию программного обеспечения, способного улучшить и облегчить работу медицинских сотрудников. Системы поддержки принятия решений (СППР) сегодня используются во многих отраслях медицины как на амбулаторном, так и на стационарном этапе оказания медицинской помощи, помогая клиницистам в выборе тактики лечения и ведения каждого конкретного пациента. Данные системы способны в определенной степени улучшать результаты лечебно-диагностического процесса. Внедрение СППР в клиническую практику показало немало преимуществ в снижении частоты постановки ошибочных диагнозов и, как следствие, риска врачебных ошибок. Наряду с этим СППР могут иметь ряд недостатков. Так, врачи могут рассматривать их как угрозу своей «клинической автономии», а внедрение и последующее обслуживание СППР могут быть достаточно дорогостоящими. Предпосылкой к созданию СППР следует считать искусственный интеллект, который все чаще применяется не только для диагностики, но и для лечения и прогнозирования исходов при различных заболеваниях. Активное развитие искусственного интеллекта отмечено практически во всех отраслях медицины. Несистематический обзор имеющейся литературы, опубликованной в период с 2012 по 2022 г. показал, что применение СППР в диагностике рака предстательной железы имеет большой потенциал в клинической практике, поскольку помогает как в выборе метода лечения, так и в планировании хода дальнейшей операции.

1. Drukker L., Noble J.A., Papageorghiou A.T. Introduction to artificial intelligence in ultrasound imaging in obstetrics and gynecology. Ultrasound Obstetr Gynecol 2020;56:498–505. DOI: 10.1002/uog.22122

2. Koza J., Bennett Iii F., Andre D. et al. Automated design of both the topology and sizing of analog electrical circuits using genetic programming. Publication History, 1996. Pp. 123–131.

3. Aizenberg I.N., Aizenberg N.N., Vandewalle J.P. Multi-valued and universal binary neurons: theory, learning and applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000. 275 p.

4. Rong G., Mendez A., Bou Assi E. et al. Artificial intelligence in healthcare: review and prediction case studies. Engineering 2020;6:291–301. DOI: 10.1016/j.eng.2019.08.015

5. Miller D.D., Brown E.W. Artificial Intelligence in medical practice: the question to the answer? Am J Med 2018;131:129–33. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.10.035

6. Sajda P. Machine learning for detection and diagnosis of disease. Ann Rev Biomed Eng 2006;8:537–65. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.bioeng.8.061505.095802

7. Molla M., Waddell M., Page D., Shavlik J. Using machine learning to design and interpret gene-expression microarrays. Al Mag 2004;25(1):23–44.

8. Pham T.D., Wells C., Crane D.I. Analysis of microarray gene expression data. Curr Bioinform 2006;1(1):37–53.

9. Shi T.W., Kah W.S., Mohamad M.S. et al. A review of gene selection tools in classifying cancer microarray data. Curr Bioinform 2017;12(3):202–12.

10. Elkin P.L., Schlegel D.R., Anderson M. et al. Artificial intelligence: bayesian versus heuristic method for diagnostic decision support. Appl Clin Inform 2018;9(2):432–9. DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1656547

11. Safdar S., Zafar S., Zafar N. et al. Machine learning based decision support systems (DSS) for heart disease diagnosis: a review. Artif Intell Rev 2018;50(4):597–623.

12. Anagnostou T., Remzi M., Lykourinas M. et al. Artificial neural networks for decision-making in urologic oncology. Eur Urol 2003;43(6):596–603. DOI: 10.1016/s0302-2838(03)00133-7

13. Pai R.K., van Booven D.J., Parmar M. et al. A review of current advancements and limitations of artificial intelligence in genitourinary cancers. Am J Clin Exp Urol 2020;8(5):152–62. PMID: 33235893

14. Shah M., Naik N., Somani B.K. et al. Artificial intelligence (AI) in urology-current use and future directions: an iTRUE study. Turk J Urol 2020;46(1):27–39. DOI: 10.5152/tud.2020.20117

15. Li C., Zhang Y., Weng Y. et al. Natural language processing applications for computer-aided diagnosis in oncology. Diagnostics (Basel) 2023;13(2):286. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13020286

16. Hu L., Fu C., Song X. et al. Automated deep-learning system in the assessment of MRI-visible prostate cancer: comparison of advanced zoomed diffusion-weighted imaging and conventional technique. Cancer Imaging 2023;23(1):6. DOI: 10.1186/s40644-023-00527-0

17. Shabaniyan T., Parsaei H., Aminsharifi A. et al. An artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support system for large kidney stone treatment. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2019;42(3):771–9. DOI: 10.1007/s13246-019-00780-3

18. Sun D., Hadjiiski L., Alva A. et al. Computerized decision support for bladder cancer treatment response assessment in CT urography: effect on diagnostic accuracy in multi-institution multi-specialty study. Tomography 2022;8(2):644–56. DOI: 10.3390/tomography8020054

19. Parekh S., Ratnani P., Falagario U. et al. The Mount Sinai Prebiopsy Risk Calculator for predicting any prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer: development of a risk predictive tool and validation with advanced neural networking, prostate magnetic resonance imaging outcome database, and european randomized study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculator. Eur Urol Open Sci 2022;41:45–54. DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.04.017

20. Huang W., Randhawa R., Jain P. et al. A novel artificial intelligencepowered method for prediction of early recurrence of prostate cancer after prostatectomy and cancer drivers. JCO Clin Cancer Inform 2022;6:e2100131. DOI: 10.1200/CCI.21.00131

21. Li M., Jiang Z., Shen W. et al. Deep learning in bladder cancer imaging: a review. Front Oncol 2022;12:930917. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.930917

22. Zhao L., Bao J., Qiao X. et al. Predicting clinically significant prostate cancer with a deep learning approach: a multicentre retrospective study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2023;50(3):727–41. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-022-06036-9

23. Parakh A., Lee H., Lee J. H. et al. Urinary stone detection on CT images using deep convolutional neural networks: evaluation of model performance and generalization. Radiol Artif Intell 2019;1(4):e180066. DOI: 10.1148/ryai.2019180066

24. Torshizi A.D., Zarandi M.H.F., Torshizi G.D. et al. A hybrid fuzzy-ontology based intelligent system to determine level of severity and treatment recommendation for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2014;113(1):301–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2013.09.021

25. Bagli D.J., Agarwal S.K., Venkateswaran S. et al. Artificial neural networks in pediatric urology: prediction of sonographic outcome following pyeloplasty. J Urol 1998;160(3):980–3. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(01)62675-2

26. Sonke G.S., Heskes T., Verbeek A.L.M. et al. Prediction of bladder outlet obstruction in men with lower urinary tract symptoms using artificial neural networks. J Urol 2000;163(1):300–5. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(05)68042-1

27. Kim J.K., Yook I.H., Choi M.J. et al. A performance comparison on the machine learning classifiers in predictive pathology staging of prostate cancer. Stud Health Technol Inform 2017;245:1273.

28. Seckiner I., Seckiner S., Sen H. et al. A neural network-based algorithm for predicting stone-free status after ESWL therapy. Int Braz J Urol 2017;43(6):1110–4. DOI: 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2016.0630

29. Aminsharifi A., Irani D., Tayebi S. et al. Predicting the postoperative outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy with machine learning system: software validation and comparative analysis with Guy’s stone score and the CROES nomogram. J Endourol 2020;34(6):692–9. DOI: 10.1089/end.2019.0475

30. Kazemi Y., Mirroshandel S.A. A novel method for predicting kidney stone type using ensemble learning. Artif Intell Med 2018;84:117–26. DOI: 10.1016/j.artmed.2017.12.001

31. Chiang D., Chiang H.C., Chen W.C. et al. Prediction of stone disease by discriminant analysis and artificial neural networks in genetic polymorphisms: a new method. BJU Int 2003;91(7):661–6. DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2003.03067.x

32. Eken C., Bilge U., Kartal M. et al. Artificial neural network, genetic algorithm, and logistic regression applications for predicting renal colic in emergency settings. Int J Emerg Med 2009;2(2):99–105. DOI: 10.1007/s12245-009-0103-1

33. Baessler B., Nestler T., Pinto dos Santos D. et al. Radiomics allows for detection of benign and malignant histopathology in patients with metastatic testicular germ cell tumors prior to postchemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Eur Radiol 2019;30(4):2334–45. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06495-z

34. Lewin J., Dufort P., Halankar J. et al. Applying radiomics to predict pathology of postchemotherapy retroperitoneal nodal masses in germ cell tumors. JCO Clin Cancer Informat 2018;2:1–12. DOI: 10.1200/CCI.18.00004

35. Xu X., Zhang X., Tian Q. et al. Three-dimensional texture features from intensity and high-order derivative maps for the discrimination between bladder tumors and wall tissues via MRI. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2017;12(4):645–56. DOI: 10.1007/s11548-017-1522-8

36. Kocak B., Yardimci A.H., Bektas C.T. et al. Textural differences between renal cell carcinoma subtypes: machine learning-based quantitative computed tomography texture analysis with independent external validation. Eur J Radiol 2018:107:149–15. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.08.014

37. Feng Z., Rong P., Cao P. et al. Machine learning-based quantitative texture analysis of CT images of small renal masses: differentiation of angiomyolipoma without visible fat from renal cell carcinoma. Eur Radiol 2017;28(4):1625–33. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-5118-z

38. Ikeda A., Nosato H., Kochi Y. et al. Support system of cystoscopic diagnosis for bladder cancer based on artificial intelligence. J Endourol 2019;34(3):352–8. DOI: 10.1089/end.2019.0509

39. Lorencin I., Anđeliс N., Spanjol J. et al. Using multi-layer perceptron with Laplacian edge detector for bladder cancer diagnosis. Artif Intell Med 2019;102:101746. DOI: 10.1016/j.artmed.2019.101746

40. Eminaga O., Semjonow A., Breil B. Diagnostic classification of cystoscopic images using deep convolutional neural networks. Eur Urol Suppl 2018;17(2):e1232. DOI: 10.1016/s1569-9056(18)31703-2

41. Ström P., Kartasalo K., Olsson H. et al. Artificial intelligence for diagnosis and grading of prostate cancer in biopsies: a population-based, diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 2020;21(2):222–32. DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30738-7

42. Bulten W., Pinckaers H., van Boven H. et al. Automated deeplearning system for Gleason grading of prostate cancer using biopsies: a diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 2020;21(2):233–41. DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30739-9

43. Fehr D., Veeraraghavan H., Wibmer A. et al. Automatic classification of prostate cancer Gleason scores from multiparametric magnetic resonance images. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2015;112:E6265–73. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1505935112

44. Langlotz C.P., Allen B., Erickson B.J. et al. A roadmap for foundational research on artificial intelligence in medical imaging: from the 2018 NIH/RSNA/ACR/The Academy Workshop. Radiology 2019;291(3):781–91. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019190613

45. Naik N., Hameed B.M.Z., Shetty D.K. et al. Legal and ethical consideration in artificial intelligence in healthcare: who takes responsibility? Front Surg 2022;14(9):862322. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.862322

46. Zhang J., Zhang Z.M. Ethics and governance of trustworthy medical artificial intelligence. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2023;23(1):7. DOI: 10.1186/s12911-023-02103-9

47. Pesapane F., Volonte C., Codari M. et al. Artificial intelligence as a medical device in radiology: ethical and regulatory issues in Europe and the United States. Insights Imaging 2018;9(5):745–53. DOI: 10.1007/s13244-018-0645-y

48. Muhiyaddin R., Abd-Alrazaq A.A., Househ M. et al. The impact of Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) on physicians: a scoping review. Stud Health Technol Inform 2020;272:470–3. DOI: 10.3233/SHTI200597

49. Shortliffe E.H. Computer-based medical consultations: mycin. Elsevier, 1976. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-00179-5.50008-1

50. Sutton R.T., Pincock D., Baumgart D.C. et al. An overview of clinical decision support systems: benefits, risks, and strategies for success. NPJ Digit Med 2020;6:3–17. DOI: 10.1038/s41746-020-0221-y

51. Малых В.Л. Системы поддержки принятия решений в медицине. Программные системы: теория и приложения 2019;2(41):155–84. DOI: 10.25209/2079-3316-2019-10-2-155-184

52. Westerbeek L., Ploegmakers K. J., de Bruijn G.J. et al. Barriers and facilitators influencing medication-related CDSS acceptance according to clinicians: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform 2021;152:104506. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104506

53. Cha K.H., Hadjiiski L., Chan H.P. et al. Bladder cancer treatment response assessment in CT using radiomics with deep-learning. Sci Rep 2017;7(1):8738. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-09315-w

54. Tataru O.S., Vartolomei M.D., Rassweiler J.J. et al. Artificial intelligence and machine learning in prostate cancer patient management-current trends and future perspectives. Diagnostics (Basel) 2021;11(2):354. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11020354