Automated detection of airflow obstructive diseases: A systematic review of the last decade (2013-2022)

Automated detection of airflow obstructive diseases: A systematic review of the last decade (2013-2022)

Background and objective
Obstructive airway diseases, including asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), are two of the most common chronic respiratory health problems. Both of these conditions require health professional expertise in making a diagnosis. Hence, this process is time intensive for healthcare providers and the diagnostic quality is subject to intra- and inter- operator variability. In this study we investigate the role of automated detection of obstructive airway diseases to reduce cost and improve diagnostic quality.

Methods
We investigated the existing body of evidence and applied Preferred Reporting Items for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to search records in IEEE, Google scholar, and PubMed databases. We identified 65 papers that were published from 2013 to 2022 and these papers cover 67 different studies. The review process was structured according to the medical data that was used for disease detection. We identified six main categories, namely air flow, genetic, imaging, signals, and miscellaneous. For each of these categories, we report both disease detection methods and their performance.

Results
We found that medical imaging was used in 14 of the reviewed studies as data for automated obstructive airway disease detection. Genetics and physiological signals were used in 13 studies. Medical records and air flow were used in 9 and 7 studies, respectively. Most papers were published in 2020 and we found three times more work on Machine Learning (ML) when compared to Deep Learning (DL). Statistical analysis shows that DL techniques achieve higher Accuracy (ACC) when compared to ML. Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) is the most common DL classifier and Support Vector Machine (SVM) is the most widely used ML classifier. During our review, we discovered only two publicly available asthma and COPD datasets. Most studies used private clinical datasets, so data size and data composition are inconsistent.

Conclusions
Our review results indicate that Artificial Intelligence (AI) can improve both decision quality and efficiency of health professionals during COPD and asthma diagnosis. However, we found several limitations in this review, such as a lack of dataset consistency, a limited dataset and remote monitoring was not sufficiently explored. We appeal to society to accept and trust computer aided airflow obstructive diseases diagnosis and we encourage health professionals to work closely with AI scientists to promote automated detection in clinical practice and hospital settings.