@article{EbigboPalmProbstetal., author = {Ebigbo, Alanna and Palm, Christoph and Probst, Andreas and Mendel, Robert and Manzeneder, Johannes and Prinz, Friederike and Souza Jr., Luis Antonio de and Papa, Jo{\~a}o Paulo and Siersema, Peter and Messmann, Helmut}, title = {A technical review of artificial intelligence as applied to gastrointestinal endoscopy: clarifying the terminology}, series = {Endoscopy International Open}, volume = {07}, journal = {Endoscopy International Open}, number = {12}, publisher = {Georg Thieme Verlag}, address = {Stuttgart}, doi = {10.1055/a-1010-5705}, pages = {1616 -- 1623}, abstract = {The growing number of publications on the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine underlines the enormous importance and potential of this emerging field of research. In gastrointestinal endoscopy, AI has been applied to all segments of the gastrointestinal tract most importantly in the detection and characterization of colorectal polyps. However, AI research has been published also in the stomach and esophagus for both neoplastic and non-neoplastic disorders. The various technical as well as medical aspects of AI, however, remain confusing especially for non-expert physicians. This physician-engineer co-authored review explains the basic technical aspects of AI and provides a comprehensive overview of recent publications on AI in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Finally, a basic insight is offered into understanding publications on AI in gastrointestinal endoscopy.}, subject = {Diagnose}, language = {en} } @article{BrownConsortiumZhouetal., author = {Brown, Peter and Consortium, RELISH and Zhou, Yaoqi and Palm, Christoph}, title = {Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search}, series = {Database}, volume = {2019}, journal = {Database}, publisher = {Oxford University Pres}, doi = {10.1093/database/baz085}, pages = {1 -- 66}, abstract = {Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76\% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.}, subject = {Information Retrieval}, language = {en} }