Differentiation of Clinical Patterns Associated With Rhinologic Disease

Artificial Intelligence and Machine (Deep) Learning in Otorhinolaryngology: A Bibliometric Analysis Based on VOSviewer and CiteSpace

BACKGROUND

Otorhinolaryngology diseases are well suited for artificial intelligence (AI)-based interpretation. The use of AI, particularly AI based on deep learning (DL), in the treatment of human diseases is becoming more and more popular. However, there are few bibliometric analyses that have systematically studied this field.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to visualize the research hot spots and trends of AI and DL in ENT diseases through bibliometric analysis to help researchers understand the future development of basic and clinical research.

METHODS

In all, 232 articles and reviews were retrieved from The Web of Science Core Collection. Using CiteSpace and VOSviewer software, countries, institutions, authors, references, and keywords in the field were visualized and examined.

RESULTS

The majority of these papers came from 44 nations and 498 institutions, with China and the United States leading the way. Common diseases used by AI in ENT include otosclerosis, otitis media, nasal polyps, sinusitis, and so on. In the early years, research focused on the analysis of hearing and articulation disorders, and in recent years mainly on the diagnosis, localization, and grading of diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis shows the periodical hot spots and development direction of AI and DL application in ENT diseases from the time dimension. The diagnosis and prognosis of otolaryngology diseases and the analysis of otolaryngology endoscopic images have been the focus of current research and the development trend of future.

The Evolution and Application of Artificial Intelligence in Rhinology: A State of the Art Review

OBJECTIVE

To provide a comprehensive overview on the applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in rhinology, highlight its limitations, and propose strategies for its integration into surgical practice.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Ei Compendex, IEEE, and Web of Science.

REVIEW METHODS

English studies from inception until January 2022 and those focusing on any application of AI in rhinology were included. Study selection was independently performed by 2 authors; discrepancies were resolved by the senior author. Studies were categorized by rhinology theme, and data collection comprised type of AI utilized, sample size, and outcomes, including accuracy and precision among others.

CONCLUSIONS

An overall 5435 articles were identified. Following abstract and title screening, 130 articles underwent full-text review, and 59 articles were selected for analysis. Eleven studies were from the gray literature. Articles were stratified into image processing, segmentation, and diagnostics (n = 27); rhinosinusitis classification (n = 14); treatment and disease outcome prediction (n = 8); optimizing surgical navigation and phase assessment (n = 3); robotic surgery (n = 2); olfactory dysfunction (n = 2); and diagnosis of allergic rhinitis (n = 3). Most AI studies were published from 2016 onward (n = 45).

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This state of the art review aimed to highlight the increasing applications of AI in rhinology. Next steps will entail multidisciplinary collaboration to ensure data integrity, ongoing validation of AI algorithms, and integration into clinical practice. Future research should be tailored at the interplay of AI with robotics and surgical education.

Artificial intelligence, machine learning, and deep learning in rhinology: a systematic review

PURPOSE

This PRISMA-compliant systematic review aims to analyze the existing applications of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and deep learning for rhinological purposes and compare works in terms of data pool size, AI systems, input and outputs, and model reliability.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. Search criteria were designed to include all studies published until December 2021 presenting or employing AI for rhinological applications. We selected all original studies specifying AI models reliability. After duplicate removal, abstract and full-text selection, and quality assessment, we reviewed eligible articles for data pool size, AI tools used, input and outputs, and model reliability.

RESULTS

Among 1378 unique citations, 39 studies were deemed eligible. Most studies (n = 29) were technical papers. Input included compiled data, verbal data, and 2D images, while outputs were in most cases dichotomous or selected among nominal classes. The most frequently employed AI tools were support vector machine for compiled data and convolutional neural network for 2D images. Model reliability was variable, but in most cases was reported to be between 80% and 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

AI has vast potential in rhinology, but an inherent lack of accessible code sources does not allow for sharing results and advancing research without reconstructing models from scratch. While data pools do not necessarily represent a problem for model construction, presently available tools appear limited in allowing employment of raw clinical data, thus demanding immense interpretive work prior to the analytic process.

The predictive utility of the 22-item sino-nasal outcome test (SNOT-22): A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The 22-item sino-nasal outcome test (SNOT-22) is a widely used and powerful patient-reported outcomes measure for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). More recently; however, the SNOT-22 has been evaluated as a predictive tool for multiple conditions. The objective of this scoping review is to investigate the extent to which SNOT-22 is used in this manner and present this information in a way useful for clinicians.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed. Studies that evaluated SNOT-22s predictive utility were considered for eligibility in this scoping review.

RESULTS

A total of 39 studies met eligibility. The SNOT-22 was found to be used as a predictive tool in three broad categories: (1) to predict a diagnosis, (2) to predict an outcome of an intervention, and (3) to predict a patient treatment preference. Thirteen studies were included in the diagnosis category, which made up ten different individual predictions. Twenty-four studies were included in the outcomes category and investigated 17 different individual predictions. Finally, two studies were included in the patient preferences category, which together made one prediction.

CONCLUSIONS

The SNOT-22 is a versatile tool that has the potential to be used in predicting various diagnoses, outcomes, and patient preferences. However, care must be taken in applying these predictions to clinical practice, as further research must be done in validating these predictions based on SNOT-22 responses.