Glioma and brain metastasis can be difficult to distinguish on conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) due to the similarity of imaging features in specific clinical circumstances. Multiple studies have investigated the use of machine learning (ML) models for non-invasive differentiation of glioma from brain metastasis. Many of the studies report promising classification results, however, to date, none have been implemented into clinical practice. After a screening of 12,470 studies, we included 29 eligible studies in our systematic review. From each study, we aggregated data on model design, development, and best classifiers, as well as quality of reporting according to the TRIPOD statement. In a subset of eligible studies, we conducted a meta-analysis of the reported AUC. It was found that data predominantly originated from single-center institutions (n = 25/29) and only two studies performed external validation. The median TRIPOD adherence was 0.48, indicating insufficient quality of reporting among surveyed studies. Our findings illustrate that despite promising classification results, reliable model assessment is limited by poor reporting of study design and lack of algorithm validation and generalizability. Therefore, adherence to quality guidelines and validation on outside datasets is critical for the clinical translation of ML for the differentiation of glioma and brain metastasis.

Background While there are innumerable Machine learning (ML) research algorithms used for segmentation of gliomas, there is yet to be a US FDA cleared product. The aim of this study is to explore the systemic limitations of research algorithms that have prevented translation from concept to product by a review of the current research literature. Methods We performed a systematic literature review on four databases. Of 11,727 articles, 58 articles met the inclusion criteria and were used for data extraction and screening using TRIPOD. Results We found that while many articles were published on ML based glioma segmentation and report high accuracy results, there were substantial limitations in the methods and results portions of the papers that result in difficulty reproducing the methods and translation into clinical practice. Conclusion In addition, we identified that more than a third of the articles used the same publicly available BRaTS and TCIA datasets and are responsible for the majority of patient data on which ML algorithms were trained, which leads to limited generalizability and potential for overfitting and bias.