Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 27, 2026
Comprehensive Autopsy Program for Individuals with Multiple Sclerosis
Published on: July 19, 2019
An analytical review on the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in diagnosis, prediction, and risk
Shima Pilehvari1, Yasser Morgan1, Wei Peng1
1University of Regina, 3737 Wascana Parkway, Regina, SK, S4S 0A2, Canada.
Abstract:
Medical research offers potential for disease prediction, like Multiple Sclerosis (MS). This neurological disorder damages nerve cell sheaths, with treatments focusing on symptom relief. Manual MS detection is time-consuming and error prone. Though MS lesion detection has been studied, limited attention has been paid to clinical analysis and computational risk factor prediction. Artificial intelligence (AI) techniques and Machine Learning (ML) methods offer accurate and effective alternatives to mapping MS progression. However, there are challenges in accessing clinical data and interdisciplinary collaboration. By analyzing 103 papers, we recognize the trends, strengths and weaknesses of AI, ML, and statistical methods applied to MS diagnosis. AI/ML-based approaches are suggested to identify MS risk factors, select significant MS features, and improve the diagnostic accuracy, such as Rule-based Fuzzy Logic (RBFL), Adaptive Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS), Artificial Neural Network methods (ANN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Bayesian Networks (BNs). Meanwhile, applications of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) can enhance MS diagnostic accuracy. By examining established risk factors like obesity, smoking, and education, some research tackled the issue of disease progression. The performance metrics varied across different aspects of MS studies: Diagnosis: Sensitivity ranged from 60 % to 98 %, specificity from 60 % to 98 %, and accuracy from 61 % to 97 %. Prediction: Sensitivity ranged from 76 % to 98 %, specificity from 65 % to 98 %, and accuracy from 62 % to 99 %. Segmentation: Accuracy ranged up to 96.7 %. Classification: Sensitivity ranged from 78 % to 97.34 %, specificity from 65 % to 99.32 %, and accuracy from 71 % to 97.94 %. Furthermore, the literature shows that combining techniques can improve efficiency, exploiting their strengths for better overall performance.
