Image-based deep learning models show high accuracy for aortic dissection segmentation and diagnosis compared to clinicians.

ObjectiveThis meta-analysis was conducted to systematically evaluate the accuracy of image-based deep learning models for aortic dissection segmentation and diagnosis, aiming to provide an evidence base for developing intelligent detection tools.MethodsA comprehensive search was performed across the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to identify studies on the effectiveness of deep learning in aortic dissection segmentation or diagnosis up to November 3, 2024. Risk evaluation was carried out with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies—2 (QUADAS-2).ResultsA total of 48 studies on deep learning models for aortic dissection segmentation or diagnostic tasks were included, with 28 on segmentation tasks and 20 on diagnostic tasks. For segmentation tasks, the mean Dice coefficient was 89.2% ± 4.4% for false lumen segmentation, 90.8% ± 3.4% for true lumen segmentation, and 91.7% ± 6.1% for entire aorta segmentation. For diagnostic tasks, computed tomography (CT) based deep learning showed pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.94 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89–0.96] and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88–0.95), respectively. In terms of electrocardiogram-based deep learning, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.85 (95% CI: 0.79–0.89) and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87–0.92), respectively. Regarding the computed tomography angiography (CTA) based deep learning, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.90–0.96) and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.91–0.98), respectively. Additionally, some studies compared the diagnostic performance of deep learning with that of clinicians. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.79 (95% CI: 0.65–0.89) and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.88–0.94), respectively.ConclusionsImage-based deep learning models demonstrated high accuracy for aortic dissection segmentation and diagnosis. They performed comparably to or better than clinicians. These findings support their potential as clinical assistive tools. Future work should prioritize multicenter validation, seamless integration of these models into clinical workflows, and enhancement of model generalizability to facilitate broader clinical adoption.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024619403, identifier CRD42024619403.