TY - JOUR A1 - Meinikheim, Michael A1 - Mendel, Robert A1 - Palm, Christoph A1 - Probst, Andreas A1 - Muzalyova, Anna A1 - Scheppach, Markus W. 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 - Influence of artificial intelligence on the diagnostic performance of endoscopists in the assessment of Barrett’s esophagus: a tandem randomized and video trial JF - Endoscopy N2 - 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. KW - Artificial Intelligence KW - Endoscopy KW - Medical Image Computing Y1 - 2024 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:898-opus4-72818 VL - 56 SP - 641 EP - 649 PB - Georg Thieme Verlag CY - Stuttgart ER - TY - GEN A1 - Ebigbo, Alanna A1 - Rauber, David A1 - Ayoub, Mousa A1 - Birzle, Lisa A1 - Matsumura, Tomoaki A1 - Probst, Andreas A1 - Steinbrück, Ingo A1 - Nagl, Sandra A1 - Römmele, Christoph A1 - Meinikheim, Michael A1 - Scheppach, Markus W. A1 - Palm, Christoph A1 - Messmann, Helmut T1 - Early Esophageal Cancer and the Generalizability of Artificial Intelligence T2 - Endoscopy N2 - Aims Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems in gastrointestinal endoscopy are narrow because they are trained to solve only one specific task. Unlike Narrow-AI, general AI systems may be able to solve multiple and unrelated tasks. We aimed to understand whether an AI system trained to detect, characterize, and segment early Barrett’s neoplasia (Barrett’s AI) is only capable of detecting this pathology or can also detect and segment other diseases like early squamous cell cancer (SCC). Methods 120 white light (WL) and narrow-band endoscopic images (NBI) from 60 patients (1 WL and 1 NBI image per patient) were extracted from the endoscopic database of the University Hospital Augsburg. Images were annotated by three expert endoscopists with extensive experience in the diagnosis and endoscopic resection of early esophageal neoplasias. An AI system based on DeepLabV3+architecture dedicated to early Barrett’s neoplasia was tested on these images. The AI system was neither trained with SCC images nor had it seen the test images prior to evaluation. The overlap between the three expert annotations („expert-agreement“) was the ground truth for evaluating AI performance. Results Barrett’s AI detected early SCC with a mean intersection over reference (IoR) of 92% when at least 1 pixel of the AI prediction overlapped with the expert-agreement. When the threshold was increased to 5%, 10%, and 20% overlap with the expert-agreement, the IoR was 88%, 85% and 82%, respectively. The mean Intersection Over Union (IoU) – a metric according to segmentation quality between the AI prediction and the expert-agreement – was 0.45. The mean expert IoU as a measure of agreement between the three experts was 0.60. Conclusions In the context of this pilot study, the predictions of SCC by a Barrett’s dedicated AI showed some overlap to the expert-agreement. Therefore, features learned from Barrett’s cancer-related training might be helpful also for SCC prediction. Our results allow different possible explanations. On the one hand, some Barrett’s cancer features generalize toward the related task of assessing early SCC. On the other hand, the Barrett’s AI is less specific to Barrett’s cancer than a general predictor of pathological tissue. However, we expect to enhance the detection quality significantly by extending the training to SCC-specific data. The insight of this study opens the way towards a transfer learning approach for more efficient training of AI to solve tasks in other domains. Y1 - 2024 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1783775 VL - 56 IS - S 02 SP - S428 PB - Thieme CY - Stuttgart ER - TY - GEN A1 - Roser, David A1 - Meinikheim, Michael A1 - Mendel, Robert A1 - Palm, Christoph A1 - Probst, Andreas A1 - Muzalyova, Anna A1 - Scheppach, Markus W. 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 - Fernandez-Esparrach, G. A1 - Parsa, Nasim A1 - Byrne, Michael F. 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 -