@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} } @misc{ScheppachMendelRauberetal., author = {Scheppach, Markus W. and Mendel, Robert and Rauber, David and Probst, Andreas and Nagl, Sandra and R{\"o}mmele, Christoph and Meinikheim, Michael and Palm, Christoph and Messmann, Helmut and Ebigbo, Alanna}, title = {Artificial Intelligence (AI) improves endoscopists' vessel detection during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)}, series = {Endoscopy}, volume = {56}, journal = {Endoscopy}, number = {S 02}, publisher = {Thieme}, address = {Stuttgart}, doi = {10.1055/s-0044-1782891}, pages = {S93}, abstract = {Aims While AI has been successfully implemented in detecting and characterizing colonic polyps, its role in therapeutic endoscopy remains to be elucidated. Especially third space endoscopy procedures like ESD and peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) pose a technical challenge and the risk of operator-dependent complications like intraprocedural bleeding and perforation. Therefore, we aimed at developing an AI-algorithm for intraprocedural real time vessel detection during ESD and POEM. Methods A training dataset consisting of 5470 annotated still images from 59 full-length videos (47 ESD, 12 POEM) and 179681 unlabeled images was used to train a DeepLabV3+neural network with the ECMT semi-supervised learning method. Evaluation for vessel detection rate (VDR) and time (VDT) of 19 endoscopists with and without AI-support was performed using a testing dataset of 101 standardized video clips with 200 predefined blood vessels. Endoscopists were stratified into trainees and experts in third space endoscopy. Results The AI algorithm had a mean VDR of 93.5\% and a median VDT of 0.32 seconds. AI support was associated with a statistically significant increase in VDR from 54.9\% to 73.0\% and from 59.0\% to 74.1\% for trainees and experts, respectively. VDT significantly decreased from 7.21 sec to 5.09 sec for trainees and from 6.10 sec to 5.38 sec for experts in the AI-support group. False positive (FP) readings occurred in 4.5\% of frames. FP structures were detected significantly shorter than true positives (0.71 sec vs. 5.99 sec). Conclusions AI improved VDR and VDT of trainees and experts in third space endoscopy and may reduce performance variability during training. Further research is needed to evaluate the clinical impact of this new technology.}, language = {en} }