@misc{MauererRexhepajMonkmanetal., author = {Mauerer, Wolfgang and Rexhepaj, Tanja and Monkman, Gareth J. and Sindersberger, Dirk and Diermeier, Andreas and Neidhart, Thomas and Wolfrum, Dominik and Sterner, Michael and Heberl, Michael and Nusko, Robert and Maier, Georg and Nagl, Klaus and Reuter, Monika and Hofrichter, Andreas and Lex, Thomas and Lesch, Florian and Kieninger, B{\"a}rbel and Szalo, Alexander Eduard and Zehner, Alexander and Palm, Christoph and Joblin, Mitchell and Apel, Sven and Ramsauer, Ralf and Lohmann, Daniel and Westner, Markus and Strasser, Artur and Munndi, Maximilian and Ebner, Lena and Elsner, Michael and Weiß, Nils and Segerer, Matthias and Hackenberg, Rudolf and Steger, Sebastian and Schmailzl, Anton and Dostalek, Michael and Armbruster, Dominik and Koch, Fabian and Hierl, Stefan and Thumann, Philipp and Swidergal, Krzysztof and Wagner, Marcus and Briem, Ulrich and Diermeier, Andreas and Spreitzer, Stefan and Beiderbeck, Sabrina and Hook, Christian and Zobel, Martin and Weber, Tim and Groß, Simon and Penzkofer, Rainer and Dendorfer, Sebastian and Schillitz, Ingo and Bauer, Thomas and Rudolph, Clarissa and Schmidt, Katja and Liebetruth, Thomas and Hamer, Markus and Haug, Sonja and Vernim, Matthias and Weber, Karsten and Saßmannshausen, Sean Patrick and Books, Sebastian and Neuleitner, Nikolaus and Rechenauer, Christian and Steffens, Oliver and Kusterle, Wolfgang and G{\"o}mmel, Roland and Wellnitz, Felix and Stierstorfer, Johannes and Stadler, Dominik and Hofmann, Matthias J. and Motschmann, Hubert and Shamonin (Chamonine), Mikhail and Bleicher, Veronika and Fischer, Sebastian and Hackenberg, Rudolf and Horn, Anton and Kawasch, Raphael and Petzenhauser, Michael and Probst, Tobias and Udalzow, Anton and Dams, Florian and Schreiner, Rupert and Langer, Christoph and Prommesberger, Christian and Ławrowski, Robert Damian}, title = {Forschungsbericht 2016}, editor = {Baier, Wolfgang}, address = {Regensburg}, organization = {Ostbayerische Technische Hochschule Regensburg}, doi = {10.35096/othr/pub-1384}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:898-opus4-13840}, language = {de} } @article{MeinikheimMendelPalmetal., author = {Meinikheim, Michael and Mendel, Robert and Palm, Christoph and Probst, Andreas and Muzalyova, Anna and Scheppach, Markus W. and Nagl, Sandra and Schnoy, Elisabeth and R{\"o}mmele, Christoph and Schulz, Dominik Andreas Helmut Otto and Schlottmann, Jakob and Prinz, Friederike and Rauber, David and R{\"u}ckert, Tobias and Matsumura, Tomoaki and Fern{\´a}ndez-Esparrach, Gl{\`o}ria and Parsa, Nasim and Byrne, Michael F. and Messmann, Helmut and Ebigbo, Alanna}, title = {Influence of artificial intelligence on the diagnostic performance of endoscopists in the assessment of Barrett's esophagus: a tandem randomized and video trial}, series = {Endoscopy}, volume = {56}, journal = {Endoscopy}, publisher = {Georg Thieme Verlag}, address = {Stuttgart}, doi = {10.1055/a-2296-5696}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:898-opus4-72818}, pages = {641 -- 649}, abstract = {Background This study evaluated the effect of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support system on the performance and diagnostic confidence of endoscopists in their assessment of Barrett's esophagus (BE). Methods 96 standardized endoscopy videos were assessed by 22 endoscopists with varying degrees of BE experience from 12 centers. Assessment was randomized into two video sets: group A (review first without AI and second with AI) and group B (review first with AI and second without AI). Endoscopists were required to evaluate each video for the presence of Barrett's esophagus-related neoplasia (BERN) and then decide on a spot for a targeted biopsy. After the second assessment, they were allowed to change their clinical decision and confidence level. Results AI had a stand-alone sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 92.2\%, 68.9\%, and 81.3\%, respectively. Without AI, BE experts had an overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 83.3\%, 58.1\%, and 71.5\%, respectively. With AI, BE nonexperts showed a significant improvement in sensitivity and specificity when videos were assessed a second time with AI (sensitivity 69.8\% [95\%CI 65.2\%-74.2\%] to 78.0\% [95\%CI 74.0\%-82.0\%]; specificity 67.3\% [95\%CI 62.5\%-72.2\%] to 72.7\% [95\%CI 68.2\%-77.3\%]). In addition, the diagnostic confidence of BE nonexperts improved significantly with AI. Conclusion BE nonexperts benefitted significantly from additional AI. BE experts and nonexperts remained significantly below the stand-alone performance of AI, suggesting that there may be other factors influencing endoscopists' decisions to follow or discard AI advice.}, language = {en} }