Deep learning-based segmentation of abdominal aortic aneurysm: a systematic review and meta-analysis of performance and clinical applicability

Vollständiger Abstract

Worum geht es in dieser Arbeit?

Abstract Background Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) management relies heavily on imaging for surveillance, treatment planning, and follow-up. Deep learning (DL)-based segmentation may improve the efficiency and reproducibility of AAA image analysis; however, reported performance varies across studies. This study aimed to systematically review and quantitatively summarize the performance of DL models for AAA-related segmentation. Methods PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies applying DL to AAA imaging in adults and reporting Dice score or intersection-over-union (IoU) as segmentation metrics. Each DL model evaluated on a held-out test set was treated as a separate model-level observation. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to pool Dice score and IoU. Subgroup analyses were performed by imaging modality, model category, and input dimensionality, and additional analyses provided structure-specific estimates for aneurysm sac, intraluminal thrombus (ILT), lumen, and EVAR-related segmentations. Results Across all targets, overall segmentation performance was 0.81 (95% CI 0.78–0.83) for Dice score and 0.72 (95% CI 0.67–0.77) for IoU. In subgroup analyses by model category, pooled Dice scores were 0.83 (95% CI 0.80–0.86) for U-Net family models, 0.82 (95% CI 0.77–0.86) for transformer or hybrid models, and 0.76 (95% CI 0.72–0.81) for other convolutional neural networks. By imaging modality, Dice scores were 0.87 (95% CI 0.84–0.89) for contrast-enhanced CT (CECT), 0.83 (95% CI 0.78–0.88) for non-contrast CT (NCCT), 0.84 (95% CI 0.81–0.87) for MRI, 0.78 (95% CI 0.74–0.82) for CT angiography (CTA), and 0.95 (95% CI 0.92–0.98) for X-ray. IoU subgroup analyses showed broadly similar patterns by modality and model category. In structure-specific analyses, aneurysm sac segmentation achieved a pooled Dice of 0.87 (95% CI 0.85–0.89) and IoU of 0.80 (95% CI 0.68–0.93); ILT segmentation reached 0.72 (95% CI 0.62–0.81) and 0.67 (95% CI 0.57–0.77); lumen segmentation 0.84 (95% CI 0.73–0.95) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.80–1.00); and EVAR-related targets 0.76 (95% CI 0.67–0.86) and 0.66 (95% CI 0.55–0.77) for Dice and IoU, respectively. Conclusions DL-based models demonstrate good segmentation performance for the AAA sac and lumen, indicating clinically acceptable accuracy for applications such as volumetric surveillance and surgical planning. Performance for ILT and EVAR-related structures is more variable, suggesting that human oversight remains advisable for these targets in clinical practice. These findings support the use of DL-based segmentation in research and highlight its potential for selected clinical applications. However, the evidence base remains heterogeneous and is derived from a limited number of studies, with most models lacking external validation. Larger, standardized, multicentre evaluations with robust external validation are needed to confirm and refine these estimates.