TY - JOUR A1 - Römmele, Christoph A1 - Mendel, Robert A1 - Barrett, Caroline A1 - Kiesl, Hans A1 - Rauber, David A1 - Rückert, Tobias A1 - Kraus, Lisa A1 - Heinkele, Jakob A1 - Dhillon, Christine A1 - Grosser, Bianca A1 - Prinz, Friederike A1 - Wanzl, Julia A1 - Fleischmann, Carola A1 - Nagl, Sandra A1 - Schnoy, Elisabeth A1 - Schlottmann, Jakob A1 - Dellon, Evan S. A1 - Messmann, Helmut A1 - Palm, Christoph A1 - Ebigbo, Alanna T1 - An artificial intelligence algorithm is highly accurate for detecting endoscopic features of eosinophilic esophagitis JF - Scientific Reports N2 - 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. KW - Artificial Intelligence KW - Smart Endoscopy KW - eosinophilic esophagitis Y1 - 2022 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:898-opus4-46928 VL - 12 PB - Nature Portfolio CY - London ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Scheppach, Markus W. A1 - Rauber, David A1 - Stallhofer, Johannes A1 - Muzalyova, Anna A1 - Otten, Vera A1 - Manzeneder, Carolin A1 - Schwamberger, Tanja A1 - Wanzl, Julia A1 - Schlottmann, Jakob A1 - Tadic, Vidan A1 - Probst, Andreas A1 - Schnoy, Elisabeth A1 - Römmele, Christoph A1 - Fleischmann, Carola A1 - Meinikheim, Michael A1 - Miller, Silvia A1 - Märkl, Bruno A1 - Stallmach, Andreas A1 - Palm, Christoph A1 - Messmann, Helmut A1 - Ebigbo, Alanna T1 - Detection of duodenal villous atrophy on endoscopic images using a deep learning algorithm JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy N2 - Background and aims Celiac disease with its endoscopic manifestation of villous atrophy is underdiagnosed worldwide. The application of artificial intelligence (AI) for the macroscopic detection of villous atrophy at routine esophagogastroduodenoscopy may improve diagnostic performance. Methods A dataset of 858 endoscopic images of 182 patients with villous atrophy and 846 images from 323 patients with normal duodenal mucosa was collected and used to train a ResNet 18 deep learning model to detect villous atrophy. An external data set was used to test the algorithm, in addition to six fellows and four board certified gastroenterologists. Fellows could consult the AI algorithm’s result during the test. From their consultation distribution, a stratification of test images into “easy” and “difficult” was performed and used for classified performance measurement. Results External validation of the AI algorithm yielded values of 90 %, 76 %, and 84 % for sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, respectively. Fellows scored values of 63 %, 72 % and 67 %, while the corresponding values in experts were 72 %, 69 % and 71 %, respectively. AI consultation significantly improved all trainee performance statistics. While fellows and experts showed significantly lower performance for “difficult” images, the performance of the AI algorithm was stable. Conclusion In this study, an AI algorithm outperformed endoscopy fellows and experts in the detection of villous atrophy on endoscopic still images. AI decision support significantly improved the performance of non-expert endoscopists. The stable performance on “difficult” images suggests a further positive add-on effect in challenging cases. KW - celiac disease KW - villous atrophy KW - endoscopy detection KW - artificial intelligence Y1 - 2023 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2023.01.006 PB - Elsevier ER - TY - GEN A1 - Scheppach, Markus A1 - Rauber, David A1 - Stallhofer, Johannes A1 - Muzalyova, Anna A1 - Otten, Vera A1 - Manzeneder, Carolin A1 - Schwamberger, Tanja A1 - Wanzl, Julia A1 - Schlottmann, Jakob A1 - Tadic, Vidan A1 - Probst, Andreas A1 - Schnoy, Elisabeth A1 - Römmele, Christoph A1 - Fleischmann, Carola A1 - Meinikheim, Michael A1 - Miller, Silvia A1 - Märkl, Bruno A1 - Palm, Christoph A1 - Messmann, Helmut A1 - Ebigbo, Alanna T1 - Performance comparison of a deep learning algorithm with endoscopists in the detection of duodenal villous atrophy (VA) T2 - Endoscopy N2 - Aims  VA is an endoscopic finding of celiac disease (CD), which can easily be missed if pretest probability is low. In this study, we aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm for the detection of villous atrophy on endoscopic images. Methods 858 images from 182 patients with VA and 846 images from 323 patients with normal duodenal mucosa were used for training and internal validation of an AI algorithm (ResNet18). A separate dataset was used for external validation, as well as determination of detection performance of experts, trainees and trainees with AI support. According to the AI consultation distribution, images were stratified into “easy” and “difficult”. Results Internal validation showed 82%, 85% and 84% for sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. External validation showed 90%, 76% and 84%. The algorithm was significantly more sensitive and accurate than trainees, trainees with AI support and experts in endoscopy. AI support in trainees was associated with significantly improved performance. While all endoscopists showed significantly lower detection for “difficult” images, AI performance remained stable. Conclusions The algorithm outperformed trainees and experts in sensitivity and accuracy for VA detection. The significant improvement with AI support suggests a potential clinical benefit. Stable performance of the algorithm in “easy” and “difficult” test images may indicate an advantage in macroscopically challenging cases. Y1 - 2023 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1765421 VL - 55 IS - S02 PB - Thieme ER - TY - GEN A1 - Roser, D. A. A1 - Meinikheim, Michael A1 - Mendel, Robert A1 - Palm, Christoph A1 - Probst, Andreas A1 - Muzalyova, A. A1 - Scheppach, Markus W. A1 - Nagl, S. A1 - Schnoy, Elisabeth A1 - Römmele, Christoph A1 - Schulz, D. A1 - Schlottmann, Jakob A1 - Prinz, Friederike A1 - Rauber, David A1 - Rückert, Tobias A1 - Matsumura, T. A1 - Fernandez-Esparrach, G. A1 - Parsa, N. A1 - Byrne, M. A1 - Messmann, Helmut A1 - Ebigbo, Alanna T1 - Human-Computer Interaction: Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the diagnostic confidence of endoscopists assessing videos of Barrett’s esophagus T2 - Endoscopy N2 - 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. Y1 - 2024 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1782859 SN - 1438-8812 VL - 56 IS - S 02 SP - 79 PB - Georg Thieme Verlag ER - TY - GEN A1 - Meinikheim, Michael A1 - Mendel, Robert A1 - Scheppach, Markus W. A1 - Probst, Andreas A1 - Prinz, Friederike A1 - Schwamberger, Tanja A1 - Schlottmann, Jakob A1 - Gölder, Stefan Karl A1 - Walter, Benjamin A1 - Steinbrück, Ingo A1 - Palm, Christoph A1 - Messmann, Helmut A1 - Ebigbo, Alanna T1 - INFLUENCE OF AN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) BASED DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM (DSS) ON THE DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCE OF NON-EXPERTS IN BARRETT´S ESOPHAGUS RELATED NEOPLASIA (BERN) T2 - Endoscopy N2 - Aims Barrett´s esophagus related neoplasia (BERN) is difficult to detect and characterize during endoscopy, even for expert endoscopists. We aimed to assess the add-on effect of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithm (Barrett-Ampel) as a decision support system (DSS) for non-expert endoscopists in the evaluation of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) and BERN. Methods Twelve videos with multimodal imaging white light (WL), narrow-band imaging (NBI), texture and color enhanced imaging (TXI) of histologically confirmed BE and BERN were assessed by expert and non-expert endoscopists. For each video, endoscopists were asked to identify the area of BERN and decide on the biopsy spot. Videos were assessed by the AI algorithm and regions of BERN were highlighted in real-time by a transparent overlay. Finally, endoscopists were shown the AI videos and asked to either confirm or change their initial decision based on the AI support. Results Barrett-Ampel correctly identified all areas of BERN, irrespective of the imaging modality (WL, NBI, TXI), but misinterpreted two inflammatory lesions (Accuracy=75%). Expert endoscopists had a similar performance (Accuracy=70,8%), while non-experts had an accuracy of 58.3%. When AI was implemented as a DSS, non-expert endoscopists improved their diagnostic accuracy to 75%. Conclusions AI may have the potential to support non-expert endoscopists in the assessment of videos of BE and BERN. Limitations of this study include the low number of videos used. Randomized clinical trials in a real-life setting should be performed to confirm these results. KW - Artificial Intelligence KW - Barrett's Esophagus KW - Speiseröhrenkrankheit KW - Künstliche Intelligenz KW - Diagnose Y1 - 2022 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1055/s-00000012 VL - 54 IS - S 01 SP - S39 PB - Thieme ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Meinikheim, Michael A1 - Mendel, Robert A1 - Palm, Christoph A1 - Probst, Andreas A1 - Muzalyova, Anna A1 - Scheppach, Markus Wolfgang A1 - Nagl, Sandra A1 - Schnoy, Elisabeth A1 - Römmele, Christoph A1 - Schulz, Dominik Andreas Helmut Otto A1 - Schlottmann, Jakob A1 - Prinz, Friederike A1 - Rauber, David A1 - Rückert, Tobias A1 - Matsumura, Tomoaki A1 - Fernández-Esparrach, Glòria A1 - Parsa, Nasim A1 - Byrne, Michael F A1 - Messmann, Helmut A1 - Ebigbo, Alanna T1 - Effect of AI on performance of endoscopists to detect Barrett neoplasia: A Randomized Tandem Trial JF - Endoscopy N2 - Background and study aims To evaluate the effect of an AI-based clinical decision support system (AI) on the performance and diagnostic confidence of endoscopists during the assessment of Barrett's esophagus (BE). Patients and Methods Ninety-six standardized endoscopy videos were assessed by 22 endoscopists from 12 different centers with varying degrees of BE experience. The 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 standalone sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 92.2%, 68.9%, and 81.6%, 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 69.7% (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 the additional AI. BE experts and nonexperts remained below the standalone performance of AI, suggesting that there may be other factors influencing endoscopists to follow or discard AI advice. Y1 - 2024 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2296-5696 SN - 0013-726X N1 - Accepted Manuscript PB - Georg Thieme Verlag ER - TY - GEN A1 - Meinikheim, Michael A1 - Mendel, Robert A1 - Scheppach, Markus W. A1 - Probst, Andreas A1 - Prinz, Friederike A1 - Schwamberger, Tanja A1 - Schlottmann, Jakob A1 - Gölder, Stefan Karl A1 - Walter, Benjamin A1 - Steinbrück, Ingo A1 - Palm, Christoph A1 - Messmann, Helmut A1 - Ebigbo, Alanna T1 - Einsatz von künstlicher Intelligenz (KI) als Entscheidungsunterstützungssystem für nicht-Experten bei der Beurteilung von Barrett-Ösophagus assoziierten Neoplasien (BERN) T2 - Zeitschrift für Gastroenterologie N2 - Einleitung Die sichere Detektion und Charakterisierung von Barrett-Ösophagus assoziierten Neoplasien (BERN) stellt selbst für erfahrene Endoskopiker eine Herausforderung dar. Ziel Ziel dieser Studie ist es, den Add-on Effekt eines künstlichen Intelligenz (KI) Systems (Barrett-Ampel) als Entscheidungsunterstüzungssystem für Endoskopiker ohne Expertise bei der Untersuchung von BERN zu evaluieren. Material und Methodik Zwölf Videos in „Weißlicht“ (WL), „narrow-band imaging“ (NBI) und „texture and color enhanced imaging“ (TXI) von histologisch bestätigten Barrett-Metaplasien oder BERN wurden von Experten und Untersuchern ohne Barrett-Expertise evaluiert. Die Probanden wurden dazu aufgefordert in den Videos auftauchende BERN zu identifizieren und gegebenenfalls die optimale Biopsiestelle zu markieren. Unser KI-System wurde demselben Test unterzogen, wobei dieses BERN in Echtzeit segmentierte und farblich von umliegendem Epithel differenzierte. Anschließend wurden den Probanden die Videos mit zusätzlicher KI-Unterstützung gezeigt. Basierend auf dieser neuen Information, wurden die Probanden zu einer Reevaluation ihrer initialen Beurteilung aufgefordert. Ergebnisse Die „Barrett-Ampel“ identifizierte unabhängig von den verwendeten Darstellungsmodi (WL, NBI, TXI) alle BERN. Zwei entzündlich veränderte Läsionen wurden fehlinterpretiert (Genauigkeit=75%). Während Experten vergleichbare Ergebnisse erzielten (Genauigkeit=70,8%), hatten Endoskopiker ohne Expertise bei der Beurteilung von Barrett-Metaplasien eine Genauigkeit von lediglich 58,3%. Wurden die nicht-Experten allerdings von unserem KI-System unterstützt, erreichten diese eine Genauigkeit von 75%. Zusammenfassung Unser KI-System hat das Potential als Entscheidungsunterstützungssystem bei der Differenzierung zwischen Barrett-Metaplasie und BERN zu fungieren und so Endoskopiker ohne entsprechende Expertise zu assistieren. Eine Limitation dieser Studie ist die niedrige Anzahl an eingeschlossenen Videos. Um die Ergebnisse dieser Studie zu bestätigen, müssen randomisierte kontrollierte klinische Studien durchgeführt werden. KW - Barrett-Ösophagus KW - Künstliche Intelligenz Y1 - 2022 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1745653 VL - 60 IS - 4 SP - 251 PB - Thieme CY - Stuttgart ER - TY - GEN A1 - Meinikheim, Michael A1 - Mendel, Robert A1 - Probst, Andreas A1 - Scheppach, Markus W. A1 - Nagl, Sandra A1 - Schnoy, Elisabeth A1 - Römmele, Christoph A1 - Prinz, Friederike A1 - Schlottmann, Jakob A1 - Messmann, Helmut A1 - Palm, Christoph A1 - Ebigbo, Alanna T1 - Einfluss von Künstlicher Intelligenz auf die Performance von niedergelassenen Gastroenterolog:innen bei der Beurteilung von Barrett-Ösophagus T2 - Zeitschrift für Gastroenterologie N2 - Einleitung  Die Differenzierung zwischen nicht dysplastischem Barrett-Ösophagus (NDBE) und mit Barrett-Ösophagus assoziierten Neoplasien (BERN) während der endoskopischen Inspektion erfordert viel Expertise. Die frühe Diagnosestellung ist wichtig für die weitere Prognose des Barrett-Karzinoms. In Deutschland werden Patient:innen mit einem Barrett-Ösophagus (BE) in der Regel im niedergelassenen Sektor überwacht. Ziele  Ziel ist es, den Einfluss von einem auf Künstlicher Intelligenz (KI) basierenden klinischen Entscheidungsunterstützungssystems (CDSS) auf die Performance von niedergelassenen Gastroenterolog:innen (NG) bei der Evaluation von Barrett-Ösophagus (BE) zu untersuchen. Methodik  Es erfolgte die prospektive Sammlung von 96 unveränderten hochauflösenden Videos mit Fällen von Patient:innen mit histologisch bestätigtem NDBE und BERN. Alle eingeschlossenen Fälle enthielten mindestens zwei der folgenden Darstellungsmethoden: HD-Weißlichtendoskopie, Narrow Band Imaging oder Texture and Color Enhancement Imaging. Sechs NG von sechs unterschiedlichen Praxen wurden als Proband:innen eingeschlossen. Es erfolgte eine permutierte Block-Randomisierung der Videofälle in entweder Gruppe A oder Gruppe B. Gruppe A implizierte eine Evaluation des Falls durch Proband:innen zunächst ohne KI und anschließend mit KI als CDSS. In Gruppe B erfolgte die Evaluation in umgekehrter Reihenfolge. Anschließend erfolgte eine zufällige Wiedergabe der so entstandenen Subgruppen im Rahmen des Tests. Ergebnis  In diesem Test konnte ein von uns entwickeltes KI-System (Barrett-Ampel) eine Sensitivität von 92,2%, eine Spezifität von 68,9% und eine Accuracy von 81,3% erreichen. Mit der Hilfe von KI verbesserte sich die Sensitivität der NG von 64,1% auf 71,2% (p<0,001) und die Accuracy von 66,3% auf 70,8% (p=0,006) signifikant. Eine signifikante Verbesserung dieser Parameter zeigte sich ebenfalls, wenn die Proband:innen die Fälle zunächst ohne KI evaluierten (Gruppe A). Wurde der Fall jedoch als Erstes mit der Hilfe von KI evaluiert (Gruppe B), blieb die Performance nahezu konstant. Schlussfolgerung  Es konnte ein performantes KI-System zur Evaluation von BE entwickelt werden. NG verbessern sich bei der Evaluation von BE durch den Einsatz von KI. KW - Barrett-Ösophagus KW - Künstliche Intelligenz Y1 - 2023 UR - https://www.thieme-connect.de/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-0043-1771711 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1771711 VL - 61 IS - 8 PB - Thieme CY - Stuttgart ER - TY - GEN A1 - Meinikheim, Michael A1 - Mendel, Robert A1 - Probst, Andreas A1 - Scheppach, Markus W. A1 - Schnoy, Elisabeth A1 - Nagl, Sandra A1 - Römmele, Christoph A1 - Prinz, Friederike A1 - Schlottmann, Jakob A1 - Golger, Daniela A1 - Palm, Christoph A1 - Messmann, Helmut A1 - Ebigbo, Alanna T1 - AI-assisted detection and characterization of early Barrett's neoplasia: Results of an Interim analysis T2 - Endoscopy N2 - Aims  Evaluation of the add-on effect an artificial intelligence (AI) based clinical decision support system has on the performance of endoscopists with different degrees of expertise in the field of Barrett's esophagus (BE) and Barrett's esophagus-related neoplasia (BERN). Methods  The support system is based on a multi-task deep learning model trained to solve a segmentation and several classification tasks. The training approach represents an extension of the ECMT semi-supervised learning algorithm. The complete system evaluates a decision tree between estimated motion, classification, segmentation, and temporal constraints, to decide when and how the prediction is highlighted to the observer. In our current study, ninety-six video cases of patients with BE and BERN were prospectively collected and assessed by Barrett's specialists and non-specialists. All video cases were evaluated twice – with and without AI assistance. The order of appearance, either with or without AI support, was assigned randomly. Participants were asked to detect and characterize regions of dysplasia or early neoplasia within the video sequences. Results  Standalone sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the AI system were 92.16%, 68.89%, and 81.25%, respectively. Mean sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of expert endoscopists without AI support were 83,33%, 58,20%, and 71,48 %, respectively. Gastroenterologists without Barrett's expertise but with AI support had a comparable performance with a mean sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 76,63%, 65,35%, and 71,36%, respectively. Conclusions  Non-Barrett's experts with AI support had a similar performance as experts in a video-based study. Y1 - 2023 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1765437 VL - 55 IS - S02 PB - Thieme ER -