Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Meniscus informatics”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2026

Analysis of deep learning techniques in computer-aided diagnosis for meniscus injuries: a systematic literature review.

Meniscus informatics is a growing subject of study in the healthcare industry. One of the major hindrances to the healthcare system's transformation is obtaining knowledge and meaningful information from complicated, high-dimensional and diverse sources. Modern biomedical research, for instance, has seen an increase in the use of complex, dissimilar, poorly documented, and generally unstructured electronic health records, imaging, sensor data and text, even after many current techniques have been used to extract more robust and useful elements from the data for analysis. New efficient standards for building end-to-end learning models from complex data are therefore needed. Therefore, the current study aims to examine the most recent research on the use of deep learning techniques for diagnosing meniscus tears and recommend creating comprehensive and meaningful interpretable structures that might benefit the healthcare industry. We also draw attention to shortcomings and the need for better technique development, and we provide new perspectives about this exciting new development in the field.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Diagnostic performance of machine learning models for malignant and non-malignant pleural effusion: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Accurately distinguishing malignant pleural effusion (MPE) from non-malignant pleural effusion is clinically important, but the generalisability and methodological quality of machine-learning (ML) models remain uncertain. METHODS: We searched eight databases to 23 April 2026. Diagnostic performance was pooled using random-effects and Reitsma bivariate models, and study quality was assessed using PROBAST+AI. RESULTS: Forty-two studies were included; 17 contributed to the AUC meta-analysis and 14 to the bivariate analysis. The pooled AUC was 0.90 (95 % CI 0.85-0.94; 95 % prediction interval 0.62-0.98), with sensitivity of 0.80 (95 % CI 0.77-0.83) and specificity of 0.87 (95 % CI 0.79-0.92). Only nine studies reported external, temporal or independent validation. Externally validated studies had a lower pooled AUC than studies without external validation (0.83 vs 0.92), with lower specificity observed in the two externally validated studies contributing sensitivity and specificity data. All 42 development assessments had high overall quality concerns, and all 42 model evaluations were judged at high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: ML models showed good apparent accuracy for distinguishing MPE from non-MPE, but the evidence was limited by substantial heterogeneity, high risk of bias and scarce external validation. The pooled estimates reflect the average performance of different selected models rather than the expected accuracy of a single clinical test. ML models should be regarded as adjuncts to existing diagnostic pathways until they are confirmed by rigorous multicentre prospective external validation and clinical-impact studies.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Privacy, security, and reliability risks of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a systematic review of empirical evidence.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into healthcare information systems, supporting clinical decision-making, imaging analysis, and predictive modeling. While these applications offer operational and clinical benefits, they also introduce emerging risks to patient privacy, data security, and system reliability. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review empirical evidence on privacy breaches, security vulnerabilities, and misuse associated with AI applications in healthcare settings. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Digital Library were searched for empirical studies published between January 2015 and November 2025 that evaluated AI use or misuse in clinical diagnosis, treatment, or decision-making. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data using a standardized form. Findings were synthesized narratively due to heterogeneity in study designs, AI methods, and reported outcomes. RESULTS: Of 7,285 records identified through database searches and 205 through citation screening, 22 empirical studies met the inclusion criteria, spanning multiple clinical domains and data modalities, predominantly medical imaging applications. Five recurring threat categories were identified: patient re-identification, membership inference, unauthorized access and adversarial exploitation, input manipulation, and misuse or overinterpretation of AI outputs. Across studies, AI models were shown to encode latent biometric signals across diverse data types, limiting the effectiveness of traditional anonymization and synthetic data approaches. Adversarial attacks and input manipulation were also shown to compromise diagnostic performance and system integrity. CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides empirical evidence suggesting that contemporary AI systems in healthcare introduce privacy and security risks that may challenge traditional assumptions about data protection. These findings underscore the need for privacy- and security-by-design approaches and governance frameworks that address risks across the AI lifecycle.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Smartphone apps for obesity management: A systematic review using self-determination theory.

BACKGROUND: While bariatric surgery and pharmacotherapy are effective treatments for obesity, ongoing supportive care remains a challenge. Smartphone applications (apps) may assist with symptom management, but their effectiveness and practical use in obesity treatment is unclear. This review evaluated the effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of these apps in supporting individuals following obesity treatment. To better understand how these apps may promote sustained engagement and behaviour change, their design was analysed using Self-Determination Theory (SDT). METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and CENTRAL databases. Eligible studies included randomised and non-randomised interventions involving adults (≥18 years) with obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) who had undergone bariatric surgery or pharmacotherapy. Interventions had to include an app designed to support post-treatment symptom management. Findings were synthesised narratively, and app features were mapped to SDT constructs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. RESULTS: Five studies (three RCTs, two cohort studies) involving 1,133 participants were included (female: 78 %; median age: 47.63 years). Most apps targeted post-bariatric surgery care; only one focused on pharmacotherapy. Common features included tracking, reminders, and education, supporting autonomy and competence. Relatedness features such as communication and peer support were least represented. Two studies reported improvements in weight-related outcomes and one in medication adherence. Effects on quality of life, self-efficacy, and healthcare utilisation were not significant. Patient satisfaction was reported in one study, with 95 % expressing positive feedback, though formal assessments of feasibility and acceptability were limited. CONCLUSION: Smartphone apps show potential to support obesity management, particularly after bariatric surgery. While some evidence suggests benefits for weight loss and adherence outcomes, the limited studies and variability of reporting prevent conclusive observations in other outcomes. Future app development should integrate behavioural theory to address psychological needs, nutritional risks and promote holistic self-management beyond weight control.

Female↗
PubMed2026

Data-centric, robust, and explainable multimodal deep learning for clinical decision support: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: Multimodal deep learning is increasingly proposed for clinical decision support (CDS) under a "data-centric" framing that prioritizes label quality, missing-modality robustness, distribution shift, calibration, and explainability. Prior reviews have examined multimodal medical AI, CDS, and data-centric methods separately, but none address their intersection. We mapped the modalities, fusion strategies, and data-centric and explainability techniques used in this recent literature, quantified how often each is implemented rather than merely mentioned, assessed deployment-relevant evidence (external validation, clinical-outcome measurement, equity), and formally appraised study-level risk of bias. METHODS: Following the PRISMA 2020 statement (PROSPERO CRD420261427815; registered retrospectively), we screened 150 records and included primary, clinical, multimodal studies that applied machine or deep learning to a decision-support task and reported at least one quantitative result. Two reviewers screened and extracted data with consensus adjudication. Each study was coded against pre-specified operational definitions, separating implemented or empirically evaluated techniques from those only mentioned. Study-level risk of bias was assessed with PROBAST + AI. Synthesis was narrative. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies met inclusion; 30 (97%) were published between 2024 and 2026, with a median of three modalities (range 2-6), most commonly structured EHR (71%) and imaging (39%). Data-centric techniques were frequently reported (74-84% across label-noise, distribution-shift, calibration, missing-modality and class-imbalance handling; equity 61%). However, external validation was reported in only 4/31 studies (13%), a clinical or provider outcome in 3/31 (10%), and no study reported routine deployment. Overall risk of bias was high in 27/31 studies (87%), driven by the analysis domain. CONCLUSION: Within this recent, self-selected slice of the field, technical robustness and explainability techniques are widely reported but rarely validated out-of-distribution or against clinical outcomes, and the underlying evidence is at high risk of bias. Progress requires external multi-site validation, clinical-outcome measurement, formal bias appraisal, and adherence to AI reporting standards (e.g., TRIPOD + AI) before deployment can be justified.

Deep Learning↗
PubMed2026

Artificial intelligence enabled social robotic interventions (PARO) in Australian dementia care: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although there is a growing body of research indicating that Personal Robot/Social Robot could be used in various aspects of care for individuals with dementia, little is known about how well these types of interventions work in an actual hospital setting in Australia. AIMS & OBJECTIVES: The objective of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the effectiveness of PARO-based socially assistive robotic intervention in terms of its effectiveness outcomes towards the reduction of dementia-related behavioural and psychological symptoms in Australian based healthcare settings. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across five electronic databases, including MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library, to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating PARO-based socially assistive robotic interventions for dementia in Australian healthcare settings. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251251916) and followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. In addition, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2) was used to evaluate the risk of bias across all studies. Pooled standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for agitation, anxiety, and depression. Heterogeneity across studies was evaluated using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Six RCTs involving 1444 participants were identified for inclusion in this review. AI-enabled socially assistive robotic interventions, specifically the PARO therapeutic robot, significantly reduced agitation and anxiety when compared to standard treatment or control conditions. The pooled analysis showed that agitation [SMD = -0.44 (95 % CI: -0.70, -0.18) p = 0.0008] and anxiety [SMD = -0.59 (95 % CI: -0.91, -0.27) p = 0.0003] were reduced significantly, while the decrease in depression [SMD = -0.44 (95 % CI: -0.95, -0.07) p = 0.09] scores was non-significant among dementia patients receiving PARO-based socially assistive robotic interventions as compared to the control. The overall risk of bias across all six studies was considered low to moderate. CONCLUSION: PARO-based socially assistive robotic interventions may provide preliminary evidence of effectiveness in reducing agitation and anxiety in individuals with dementia in Australian healthcare, but the evidence regarding the reduction of depression remains unclear. Therefore, additional high-quality trials with consistent methodology and extended follow-up will be necessary to determine both the short-term and long-term clinical efficacy and practicality of implementing these interventions into practice.

Humans↗