@misc{RoserMeinikheimMendeletal., author = {Roser, D. A. and Meinikheim, Michael and Mendel, Robert and Palm, Christoph and Probst, Andreas and Muzalyova, A. and Scheppach, Markus W. and Nagl, S. and Schnoy, Elisabeth and R{\"o}mmele, Christoph and Schulz, D. and Schlottmann, Jakob and Prinz, Friederike and Rauber, David and R{\"u}ckert, Tobias and Matsumura, T. and Fernandez-Esparrach, G. and Parsa, N. and Byrne, M. 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} } @article{RoemmeleMendelBarrettetal., author = {R{\"o}mmele, Christoph and Mendel, Robert and Barrett, Caroline and Kiesl, Hans and Rauber, David and R{\"u}ckert, Tobias and Kraus, Lisa and Heinkele, Jakob and Dhillon, Christine and Grosser, Bianca and Prinz, Friederike and Wanzl, Julia and Fleischmann, Carola and Nagl, Sandra and Schnoy, Elisabeth and Schlottmann, Jakob and Dellon, Evan S. and Messmann, Helmut and Palm, Christoph and Ebigbo, Alanna}, title = {An artificial intelligence algorithm is highly accurate for detecting endoscopic features of eosinophilic esophagitis}, series = {Scientific Reports}, volume = {12}, journal = {Scientific Reports}, publisher = {Nature Portfolio}, address = {London}, doi = {10.1038/s41598-022-14605-z}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:898-opus4-46928}, pages = {10}, abstract = {The endoscopic features associated with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) may be missed during routine endoscopy. We aimed to develop and evaluate an Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithm for detecting and quantifying the endoscopic features of EoE in white light images, supplemented by the EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS). An AI algorithm (AI-EoE) was constructed and trained to differentiate between EoE and normal esophagus using endoscopic white light images extracted from the database of the University Hospital Augsburg. In addition to binary classification, a second algorithm was trained with specific auxiliary branches for each EREFS feature (AI-EoE-EREFS). The AI algorithms were evaluated on an external data set from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (UNC), and compared with the performance of human endoscopists with varying levels of experience. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of AI-EoE were 0.93 for all measures, while the AUC was 0.986. With additional auxiliary branches for the EREFS categories, the AI algorithm (AI-EoEEREFS) performance improved to 0.96, 0.94, 0.95, and 0.992 for sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC, respectively. AI-EoE and AI-EoE-EREFS performed significantly better than endoscopy beginners and senior fellows on the same set of images. An AI algorithm can be trained to detect and quantify endoscopic features of EoE with excellent performance scores. The addition of the EREFS criteria improved the performance of the AI algorithm, which performed significantly better than endoscopists with a lower or medium experience level.}, language = {en} }