Artificial intelligence versus expert endoscopists for diagnosis of gastric cancer in patients who have undergone upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Aims
To compare endoscopy gastric cancer images diagnosis rate between artificial intelligence (AI) and expert endoscopists.Patients and methods
We used the retrospective data of 500 patients, including 100 with gastric cancer, matched 1:1 to diagnosis by AI or expert endoscopists. We retrospectively evaluated the noninferiority (prespecified margin 5 %) of the per-patient rate of gastric cancer diagnosis by AI and compared the per-image rate of gastric cancer diagnosis.Results
Gastric cancer was diagnosed in 49 of 49 patients (100 %) in the AI group and 48 of 51 patients (94.12 %) in the expert endoscopist group (difference 5.88, 95 % confidence interval: -0.58 to 12.3). The per-image rate of gastric cancer diagnosis was higher in the AI group (99.87 %, 747 /748 images) than in the expert endoscopist group (88.17 %, 693 /786 images) (difference 11.7 %).Conclusions
Noninferiority of the rate of gastric cancer diagnosis by AI was demonstrated but superiority was not demonstrated.
SUBMITTER: Niikura R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9329064 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and aimsArtificial intelligence (AI)-based applications have transformed several industries and are widely used in various consumer products and services. In medicine, AI is primarily being used for image classification and natural language processing and has great potential to affect image-based specialties such as radiology, pathology, and gastroenterology (GE). This document reviews the reported applications of AI in GE, focusing on endoscopic image analysis.MethodsThe MEDLINE database was searched through May 2020 for relevant articles by using key words such as machine learning, deep learning, artificial intelligence, computer-aided diagnosis, convolutional neural networks, GI endoscopy, and endoscopic image analysis. References and citations of the retrieved articles were also evaluated to identify pertinent studies. The manuscript was drafted by 2 authors and reviewed in person by members of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Technology Committee and subsequently by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Governing Board.ResultsDeep learning techniques such as convolutional neural networks have been used in several areas of GI endoscopy, including colorectal polyp detection and classification, analysis of endoscopic images for diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection, detection and depth assessment of early gastric cancer, dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus, and detection of various abnormalities in wireless capsule endoscopy images.ConclusionsThe implementation of AI technologies across multiple GI endoscopic applications has the potential to transform clinical practice favorably and improve the efficiency and accuracy of current diagnostic methods.
| S-EPMC7732722 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Artificial intelligence (AI) has enormous potential to support clinical routine workflows and therefore is gaining increasing popularity among medical professionals. In the field of gastroenterology, investigations on AI and computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems have mainly focused on the lower gastrointestinal (GI) tract. However, numerous CAD tools have been tested also in upper GI disorders showing encouraging results. The main application of AI in the upper GI tract is endoscopy; however, the need to analyze increasing loads of numerical and categorical data in short times has pushed researchers to investigate applications of AI systems in other upper GI settings, including gastroesophageal reflux disease, eosinophilic esophagitis, and motility disorders. AI and CAD systems will be increasingly incorporated into daily clinical practice in the coming years, thus at least basic notions will be soon required among physicians. For noninsiders, the working principles and potential of AI may be as fascinating as obscure. Accordingly, we reviewed systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and original research articles regarding the performance of AI in the diagnosis of both malignant and benign esophageal and gastric diseases, also discussing essential characteristics of AI.
| S-EPMC9988236 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Widespread adoption of optical diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia is prevented by suboptimal endoscopist performance and lack of standardized training and competence evaluation. We aimed to assess diagnostic accuracy of endoscopists in optical diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia in the framework of artificial intelligence (AI) validation studies. Literature searches of databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus) up to April 2022 were performed to identify articles evaluating accuracy of individual endoscopists in performing optical diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia within studies validating AI against a histologically verified ground-truth. The main outcomes were endoscopists' pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV/NPV), positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR) and area under the curve (AUC for sROC) for predicting adenomas versus non-adenomas. Six studies with 67 endoscopists and 2085 (IQR: 115-243,5) patients were evaluated. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for adenomatous histology was respectively 84.5% (95% CI 80.3%-88%) and 83% (95% CI 79.6%-85.9%), corresponding to a PPV, NPV, LR+, LR- of 89.5% (95% CI 87.1%-91.5%), 75.7% (95% CI 70.1%-80.7%), 5 (95% CI 3.9%-6.2%) and 0.19 (95% CI 0.14%-0.25%). The AUC was 0.82 (CI 0.76-0.90). Expert endoscopists showed a higher sensitivity than non-experts (90.5%, [95% CI 87.6%-92.7%] vs. 75.5%, [95% CI 66.5%-82.7%], p < 0.001), and Eastern endoscopists showed a higher sensitivity than Western (85%, [95% CI 80.5%-88.6%] vs. 75.8%, [95% CI 70.2%-80.6%]). Quality was graded high for 3 studies and low for 3 studies. We show that human accuracy for diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia in the setting of AI studies is suboptimal. Educational interventions could benefit by AI validation settings which seem a feasible framework for competence assessment.
| S-EPMC9557953 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Artificial intelligence (AI) is widely used to analyze gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy image data. AI has led to several clinically approved algorithms for polyp detection, but application of AI beyond this specific task is limited by the high cost of manual annotations. Here, we show that a weakly supervised AI can be trained on data from a clinical routine database to learn visual patterns of GI diseases without any manual labeling or annotation. We trained a deep neural network on a dataset of N = 29,506 gastroscopy and N = 18,942 colonoscopy examinations from a large endoscopy unit serving patients in Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, using only routine diagnosis data for the 42 most common diseases. Despite a high data heterogeneity, the AI system reached a high performance for diagnosis of multiple diseases, including inflammatory, degenerative, infectious and neoplastic diseases. Specifically, a cross-validated area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) of above 0.70 was reached for 13 diseases, and an AUROC of above 0.80 was reached for two diseases in the primary data set. In an external validation set including six disease categories, the AI system was able to significantly predict the presence of diverticulosis, candidiasis, colon and rectal cancer with AUROCs above 0.76. Reverse engineering the predictions demonstrated that plausible patterns were learned on the level of images and within images and potential confounders were identified. In summary, our study demonstrates the potential of weakly supervised AI to generate high-performing classifiers and identify clinically relevant visual patterns based on non-annotated routine image data in GI endoscopy and potentially other clinical imaging modalities.
| S-EPMC8941159 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Standards for good practice in clinical risk management issued by the Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts indicate that "appropriate information is provided to patients on the risks and benefits of proposed treatment, and of the alternatives available before a signature on a consent form is sought". AIMS:To investigate the practicability and patient acceptability of a postal information and consent booklet for patients undergoing outpatient gastroscopy. METHODS:Information about gastroscopy procedure, personalised appointment details, and a carbonised consent form were compiled into a single booklet. This was mailed to patients well in advance of their endoscopic procedure. Patient satisfaction for this new process was assessed by questionnaire. RESULTS:275 patients received a patient information booklet. Of these, 150 (54.5%) returned the consent form by post when they confirmed their attendance; 141 (94%) had signed the form, and the other nine requested further information. Of the remaining 125 booklets sent out, 115 (92%) forms were brought back on the day of the investigation having been previously signed. The remaining 10 (8%) required further information before signing the form. An audit of 168 patients was used to test reaction to the booklet and the idea of filling in the form before coming to hospital; 155 patients (92. 2%) reported the information given in the booklet to be "very useful", and all reported it to be "clear and understandable". CONCLUSION:A specifically designed patient information booklet with integral consent form is accepted by patients, and improves the level of understanding prior to the investigation being carried out.
| S-EPMC1727779 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSince the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) in clinical studies, luminal gastrointestinal endoscopy has made great progress, especially in the detection and characterization of neoplastic and preneoplastic lesions. Several studies have recently shown the potential of AI-driven endoscopy for the investigation of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). This systematic review provides an overview of the current position and future potential of AI in IBD endoscopy.MethodsA systematic search was carried out in PubMed and Scopus up to 2 December 2020 using the following search terms: artificial intelligence, machine learning, computer-aided, inflammatory bowel disease, ulcerative colitis (UC), Crohn's disease (CD). All studies on human digestive endoscopy were included. A qualitative analysis and a narrative description were performed for each selected record according to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodologies and the PRISMA statement.ResultsOf 398 identified records, 18 were ultimately included. Two-thirds of these (12/18) were published in 2020 and most were cross-sectional studies (15/18). No relevant bias at the study level was reported, although the risk of publication bias across studies cannot be ruled out at this early stage. Eleven records dealt with UC, five with CD and two with both. Most of the AI systems involved convolutional neural network, random forest and deep neural network architecture. Most studies focused on capsule endoscopy readings in CD (n = 5) and on the AI-assisted assessment of mucosal activity in UC (n = 10) for automated endoscopic scoring or real-time prediction of histological disease.DiscussionAI-assisted endoscopy in IBD is a rapidly evolving research field with promising technical results and additional benefits when tested in an experimental clinical scenario. External validation studies being conducted in large and prospective cohorts in real-life clinical scenarios will help confirm the added value of AI in assessing UC mucosal activity and in CD capsule reading.Plain language summaryArtificial intelligence for inflammatory bowel disease endoscopy Artificial intelligence (AI) is a promising technology in many areas of medicine. In recent years, AI-assisted endoscopy has been introduced into several research fields, including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) endoscopy, with promising applications that have the potential to revolutionize clinical practice and gastrointestinal endoscopy.We have performed the first systematic review of AI and its application in the field of IBD and endoscopy.A formal process of paper selection and analysis resulted in the assessment of 18 records. Most of these (12/18) were published in 2020 and were cross-sectional studies (15/18). No relevant biases were reported. All studies showed positive results concerning the novel technology evaluated, so the risk of publication bias cannot be ruled out at this early stage.Eleven records dealt with UC, five with CD and two with both. Most studies focused on capsule endoscopy reading in CD patients (n = 5) and on AI-assisted assessment of mucosal activity in UC patients (n = 10) for automated endoscopic scoring and real-time prediction of histological disease.We found that AI-assisted endoscopy in IBD is a rapidly growing research field. All studies indicated promising technical results. When tested in an experimental clinical scenario, AI-assisted endoscopy showed it could potentially improve the management of patients with IBD.Confirmatory evidence from real-life clinical scenarios should be obtained to verify the added value of AI-assisted IBD endoscopy in assessing UC mucosal activity and in CD capsule reading.
| S-EPMC8202249 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionUpper gastrointestinal endoscopy is used to diagnose and treat upper gastrointestinal diseases, but it can also cause complications, including perforation. Perforation is a serious complication, so it is important to be aware of the risk factors in advance and to take precautions to prevent it.Case presentationWe report a case of gastric perforation caused by excessive insufflation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in a 64-year-old man with a history of multiple active gastric ulcers. During the endoscopy, the patient did not cooperate and insufflation was performed for a prolonged period of time. This led to a mucosal laceration and a hole suspected to be a perforation on the lesser curvature of the gastric body. The patient was treated nonsurgically with fasting, intravenous fluids, antibiotics, intravenous proton pump inhibitors, and blood transfusions. No leakage was observed on the follow-up computed tomography scan, and the perforation site was completely healed 2 months later.ConclusionIn this case, the patient was successfully treated with conservative therapy alone. The treatment of gastric perforation caused by endoscopy has shifted toward conservative therapy in recent years.
| S-EPMC10651181 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background & Aims: Gastric cancer is the common malignancies from cancer worldwide. Endoscopy is currently the most effective method to detect early gastric cancer (EGC). However, endoscopy is not infallible and EGC can be missed during endoscopy. Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted endoscopic diagnosis is a recent hot spot of research. We aimed to quantify the diagnostic value of AI-assisted endoscopy in diagnosing EGC. Method: The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library Databases were searched for articles on AI-assisted endoscopy application in EGC diagnosis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated, and the endoscopists' diagnostic value was evaluated for comparison. The subgroup was set according to endoscopy modality, and number of training images. A funnel plot was delineated to estimate the publication bias. Result: 16 studies were included in this study. We indicated that the application of AI in endoscopic detection of EGC achieved an AUC of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94-0.97), a sensitivity of 86% (95% CI, 77-92%), and a specificity of 93% (95% CI, 89-96%). In AI-assisted EGC depth diagnosis, the AUC was 0.82(95% CI, 0.78-0.85), and the pooled sensitivity and specificity was 0.72(95% CI, 0.58-0.82) and 0.79(95% CI, 0.56-0.92). The funnel plot showed no publication bias. Conclusion: The AI applications for EGC diagnosis seemed to be more accurate than the endoscopists. AI assisted EGC diagnosis was more accurate than experts. More prospective studies are needed to make AI-aided EGC diagnosis universal in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC8005567 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Capsule endoscopy (CE) has been increasingly utilised in recent years as a minimally invasive tool to investigate the whole gastrointestinal (GI) tract and a range of capsules are currently available for evaluation of upper GI, small bowel, and lower GI pathology. Although CE is undoubtedly an invaluable test for the investigation of small bowel pathology, it presents considerable challenges and limitations, such as long and laborious reading times, risk of missing lesions, lack of bowel cleansing score and lack of locomotion. Artificial intelligence (AI) seems to be a promising tool that may help improve the performance metrics of CE, and consequently translate to better patient care. In the last decade, significant progress has been made to apply AI in the field of endoscopy, including CE. Although it is certain that AI will find soon its place in day-to-day endoscopy clinical practice, there are still some open questions and barriers limiting its widespread application. In this review, we provide some general information about AI, and outline recent advances in AI and CE, issues around implementation of AI in medical practice and potential future applications of AI-aided CE.
| S-EPMC8303156 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background & study aimsCorona virus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has markedly impacted routine medical services including gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. We aim to report the real-life performance in high volume GI endoscopy units during the pandemic.Patients and methodsA web-based survey covering all aspects of daily performance in GI endoscopy units was sent to endoscopy units worldwide. Responses were collected and data were analyzed to reveal the effect of COVID-19 pandemic on endoscopy practice.ResultsParticipants from 48 countries (n = 163) responded to the survey with response rate of 67.35%. The majority (85%) decreased procedure volume by over 50%, and four endoscopy units (2.45%) completely stopped. The top three indications for procedures included upper GI bleeding (89.6%), lower GI bleeding (65.6%) and cholangitis (62.6%). The majority (93.9%) triaged patients for COVID-19 prior to procedure. N95 masks were used in (57.1%), isolation gowns in (74.2%) and head covers in (78.5%). Most centers (65%) did not extend use of N95 masks, however 50.9% of centers reused N95 masks. Almost all (91.4%) centers used standard endoscopic decontamination and most (69%) had no negative pressure rooms. Forty-two centers (25.8%) reported positive cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients and 50 (30.7%) centers reported positive cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection among their healthcare workers.ConclusionsMost GI endoscopy centers had a significant reduction in their volume and most procedures performed were urgent. Most centers used the recommended personal protective equipment (PPE) by GI societies however there is still a possibility of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection in GI endoscopy units.
| S-EPMC7448955 | biostudies-literature