@misc{RoserMeinikheimMendeletal., author = {Roser, David and 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 Fernandez-Esparrach, G. and Parsa, Nasim and Byrne, Michael F. and Messmann, Helmut and Ebigbo, Alanna}, title = {Human-Computer Interaction: Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the diagnostic confidence of endoscopists assessing videos of Barrett's esophagus}, series = {Endoscopy}, volume = {56}, journal = {Endoscopy}, number = {S 02}, publisher = {Georg Thieme Verlag}, issn = {1438-8812}, doi = {10.1055/s-0044-1782859}, pages = {79}, abstract = {Aims Human-computer interactions (HCI) may have a relevant impact on the performance of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Studies show that although endoscopists assessing Barrett's esophagus (BE) with AI improve their performance significantly, they do not achieve the level of the stand-alone performance of AI. One aspect of HCI is the impact of AI on the degree of certainty and confidence displayed by the endoscopist. Indirectly, diagnostic confidence when using AI may be linked to trust and acceptance of AI. In a BE video study, we aimed to understand the impact of AI on the diagnostic confidence of endoscopists and the possible correlation with diagnostic performance. Methods 22 endoscopists from 12 centers with varying levels of BE experience reviewed ninety-six standardized endoscopy videos. Endoscopists were categorized into experts and non-experts and randomly assigned to assess the videos with and without AI. Participants were randomized in two arms: Arm A assessed videos first without AI and then with AI, while Arm B assessed videos in the opposite order. Evaluators were tasked with identifying BE-related neoplasia and rating their confidence with and without AI on a scale from 0 to 9. Results The utilization of AI in Arm A (without AI first, with AI second) significantly elevated confidence levels for experts and non-experts (7.1 to 8.0 and 6.1 to 6.6, respectively). Only non-experts benefitted from AI with a significant increase in accuracy (68.6\% to 75.5\%). Interestingly, while the confidence levels of experts without AI were higher than those of non-experts with AI, there was no significant difference in accuracy between these two groups (71.3\% vs. 75.5\%). In Arm B (with AI first, without AI second), experts and non-experts experienced a significant reduction in confidence (7.6 to 7.1 and 6.4 to 6.2, respectively), while maintaining consistent accuracy levels (71.8\% to 71.8\% and 67.5\% to 67.1\%, respectively). Conclusions AI significantly enhanced confidence levels for both expert and non-expert endoscopists. Endoscopists felt significantly more uncertain in their assessments without AI. Furthermore, experts with or without AI consistently displayed higher confidence levels than non-experts with AI, irrespective of comparable outcomes. These findings underscore the possible role of AI in improving diagnostic confidence during endoscopic assessment.}, language = {en} } @misc{RoemmeleMendelRauberetal., author = {R{\"o}mmele, Christoph and Mendel, Robert and Rauber, David and R{\"u}ckert, Tobias and Byrne, Michael F. and Palm, Christoph and Messmann, Helmut and Ebigbo, Alanna}, title = {Endoscopic Diagnosis of Eosinophilic Esophagitis Using a deep Learning Algorithm}, series = {Endoscopy}, volume = {53}, journal = {Endoscopy}, number = {S 01}, publisher = {Georg Thieme Verlag}, address = {Stuttgart}, doi = {10.1055/s-0041-1724274}, abstract = {Aims Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is easily missed during endoscopy, either because physicians are not familiar with its endoscopic features or the morphologic changes are too subtle. In this preliminary paper, we present the first attempt to detect EoE in endoscopic white light (WL) images using a deep learning network (EoE-AI). Methods 401 WL images of eosinophilic esophagitis and 871 WL images of normal esophageal mucosa were evaluated. All images were assessed for the Endoscopic Reference score (EREFS) (edema, rings, exudates, furrows, strictures). Images with strictures were excluded. EoE was defined as the presence of at least 15 eosinophils per high power field on biopsy. A convolutional neural network based on the ResNet architecture with several five-fold cross-validation runs was used. Adding auxiliary EREFS-classification branches to the neural network allowed the inclusion of the scores as optimization criteria during training. EoE-AI was evaluated for sensitivity, specificity, and F1-score. In addition, two human endoscopists evaluated the images. Results EoE-AI showed a mean sensitivity, specificity, and F1 of 0.759, 0.976, and 0.834 respectively, averaged over the five distinct cross-validation runs. With the EREFS-augmented architecture, a mean sensitivity, specificity, and F1-score of 0.848, 0.945, and 0.861 could be demonstrated respectively. In comparison, the two human endoscopists had an average sensitivity, specificity, and F1-score of 0.718, 0.958, and 0.793. Conclusions To the best of our knowledge, this is the first application of deep learning to endoscopic images of EoE which were also assessed after augmentation with the EREFS-score. The next step is the evaluation of EoE-AI using an external dataset. We then plan to assess the EoE-AI tool on endoscopic videos, and also in real-time. This preliminary work is encouraging regarding the ability for AI to enhance physician detection of EoE, and potentially to do a true "optical biopsy" but more work is needed.}, language = {en} } @misc{RueckertRiederRauberetal., author = {R{\"u}ckert, Tobias and Rieder, Maximilian and Rauber, David and Xiao, Michel and Humolli, Eg and Feussner, Hubertus and Wilhelm, Dirk and Palm, Christoph}, title = {Augmenting instrument segmentation in video sequences of minimally invasive surgery by synthetic smoky frames}, series = {International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery}, volume = {18}, journal = {International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery}, number = {Suppl 1}, publisher = {Springer Nature}, doi = {10.1007/s11548-023-02878-2}, pages = {S54 -- S56}, language = {en} } @misc{ScheppachMendelProbstetal., author = {Scheppach, Markus W. and Mendel, Robert and Probst, Andreas and Rauber, David and R{\"u}ckert, Tobias and Meinikheim, Michael and Palm, Christoph and Messmann, Helmut and Ebigbo, Alanna}, title = {Real-time detection and delineation of tissue during third-space endoscopy using artificial intelligence (AI)}, series = {Endoscopy}, volume = {55}, journal = {Endoscopy}, number = {S02}, publisher = {Thieme}, doi = {10.1055/s-0043-1765128}, pages = {S53 -- S54}, abstract = {Aims AI has proven great potential in assisting endoscopists in diagnostics, however its role in therapeutic endoscopy remains unclear. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a technically demanding intervention with a slow learning curve and relevant risks like bleeding and perforation. Therefore, we aimed to develop an algorithm for the real-time detection and delineation of relevant structures during third-space endoscopy. Methods 5470 still images from 59 full length videos (47 ESD, 12 POEM) were annotated. 179681 additional unlabeled images were added to the training dataset. Consequently, a DeepLabv3+ neural network architecture was trained with the ECMT semi-supervised algorithm (under review elsewhere). Evaluation of vessel detection was performed on a dataset of 101 standardized video clips from 15 separate third-space endoscopy videos with 200 predefined blood vessels. Results Internal validation yielded an overall mean Dice score of 85\% (68\% for blood vessels, 86\% for submucosal layer, 88\% for muscle layer). On the video test data, the overall vessel detection rate (VDR) was 94\% (96\% for ESD, 74\% for POEM). The median overall vessel detection time (VDT) was 0.32 sec (0.3 sec for ESD, 0.62 sec for POEM). Conclusions Evaluation of the developed algorithm on a video test dataset showed high VDR and quick VDT, especially for ESD. Further research will focus on a possible clinical benefit of the AI application for VDR and VDT during third-space endoscopy.}, subject = {Speiser{\"o}hrenkrankheit}, language = {en} } @misc{RoserMeinikheimMendeletal., author = {Roser, David and Meinikheim, Michael and Mendel, Robert and Palm, Christoph and Muzalyova, Anna and Rauber, David and R{\"u}ckert, Tobias and Parsa, Nasim and Byrne, Michael F. and Messmann, Helmut and Ebigbo, Alanna}, title = {Mensch-Maschine-Interaktion: Einfluss k{\"u}nstlicher Intelligenz auf das diagnostische Vertrauen von Endoskopikern bei der Beurteilung des Barrett-{\"O}sophagus}, series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Gastroenterologie}, volume = {62}, journal = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Gastroenterologie}, number = {09}, publisher = {Georg Thieme Verlag KG}, doi = {10.1055/s-0044-1789656}, pages = {e575 -- e576}, abstract = {Ziele: Das Ziel der Studie war es, den Einfluss von KI auf die diagnostische Sicherheit (Konfidenzniveau) von Endoskopikern anhand von B{\"O}-Videos zu untersuchen und m{\"o}gliche Korrelationen mit der Untersuchungsqualit{\"a}t zu erforschen. Methodik: 22 Endoskopiker aus zw{\"o}lf Zentren mit unterschiedlicher Barrett-Erfahrung untersuchten 96 standardisierte Endoskopievideos. Die Untersucher wurden in Experten und Nicht-Experten eingeteilt und nach dem Zufallsprinzip f{\"u}r die Bewertung der Videos mit oder ohne KI eingeteilt. Die Teilnehmer wurden in zwei Gruppen aufgeteilt: Arm A bewertete zun{\"a}chst Videos ohne KI und dann mit KI, w{\"a}hrend Arm B die umgekehrte Reihenfolge einhielt. Die Untersucher hatten die Aufgabe, B{\"O}-assoziierte Neoplasien zu erkennen und ihr Konfidenzniveau sowohl mit als auch ohne KI auf einer Skala von 0 bis 9 anzugeben. Ergebnis: In Arm A erh{\"o}hte der Einsatz von KI das Konfidenzniveau bei beiden signifikant (p<0.001). Bemerkenswert ist, dass jedoch nur Nicht-Experten durch die KI eine signifikante Verbesserung der Sensitivit{\"a}t und Spezifit{\"a}t (p<0.001 bzw. p<0.05) erfuhren. W{\"a}hrend Experten ohne KI im Vergleich zu Nicht-Experten mit KI ein h{\"o}heres Konfidenzniveau aufwiesen, gab es keinen signifikanten Unterschied in der Genauigkeit. In Arm B zeigten beide Gruppen eine signifikante Abnahme des Konfidenzniveaus (p<0.001) bei gleichbleibender Genauigkeit. Dar{\"u}ber hinaus wurden in 9\% der Entscheidungen trotz korrekter KI eine falsche Wahl getroffen. Schlussfolgerung: Der Einsatz k{\"u}nstlicher Intelligenz steigerte das Konfidenzniveau sowohl bei Experten als auch bei Nicht-Experten signifikant - ein Effekt, der im Studienmodell reversibel war. Dar{\"u}ber hinaus wiesen Experten mit oder ohne KI durchweg h{\"o}here Konfidenzniveaus auf als Nicht-Experten mit KI, trotz vergleichbarer Ergebnisse. Zudem konnte beobachtet werden, dass die Untersucher in 9\% der F{\"a}lle die KI zuungunsten des Patienten ignorierten.}, language = {de} }