Refine
Document Type
Language
- English (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
- Artificial Intelligence (5) (remove)
Institute
- Fakultät Informatik und Mathematik (5) (remove)
Begutachtungsstatus
- peer-reviewed (5)
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.
Background and aims: The accurate differentiation between T1a and T1b Barrett’s cancer has both therapeutic and prognostic implications but is challenging even for experienced physicians. We trained an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system on the basis of deep artificial neural networks (deep learning) to differentiate between T1a and T1b Barrett’s cancer white-light images.
Methods: Endoscopic images from three tertiary care centres in Germany were collected retrospectively. A deep learning system was trained and tested using the principles of cross-validation. A total of 230 white-light endoscopic images (108 T1a and 122 T1b) was evaluated with the AI-system. For comparison, the images were also classified by experts specialized in endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of Barrett’s cancer.
Results: The sensitivity, specificity, F1 and accuracy of the AI-system in the differentiation between T1a and T1b cancer lesions was 0.77, 0.64, 0.73 and 0.71, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the performance of the AI-system and that of human experts with sensitivity, specificity, F1 and accuracy of 0.63, 0.78, 0.67 and 0.70 respectively.
Conclusion: This pilot study demonstrates the first multicenter application of an AI-based system in the prediction of submucosal invasion in endoscopic images of Barrett’s cancer. AI scored equal to international experts in the field, but more work is necessary to improve the system and apply it to video sequences and in a real-life setting. Nevertheless, the correct prediction of submucosal invasion in Barret´s cancer remains challenging for both experts and AI.
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.
Aims
AI has proven great potential in assisting endoscopists in diagnostics, however its role in therapeutic endoscopy remains unclear. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a technically demanding intervention with a slow learning curve and relevant risks like bleeding and perforation. Therefore, we aimed to develop an algorithm for the real-time detection and delineation of relevant structures during third-space endoscopy.
Methods
5470 still images from 59 full length videos (47 ESD, 12 POEM) were annotated. 179681 additional unlabeled images were added to the training dataset. Consequently, a DeepLabv3+ neural network architecture was trained with the ECMT semi-supervised algorithm (under review elsewhere). Evaluation of vessel detection was performed on a dataset of 101 standardized video clips from 15 separate third-space endoscopy videos with 200 predefined blood vessels.
Results
Internal validation yielded an overall mean Dice score of 85% (68% for blood vessels, 86% for submucosal layer, 88% for muscle layer). On the video test data, the overall vessel detection rate (VDR) was 94% (96% for ESD, 74% for POEM). The median overall vessel detection time (VDT) was 0.32 sec (0.3 sec for ESD, 0.62 sec for POEM).
Conclusions
Evaluation of the developed algorithm on a video test dataset showed high VDR and quick VDT, especially for ESD. Further research will focus on a possible clinical benefit of the AI application for VDR and VDT during third-space endoscopy.
In this study, we aimed to develop an artificial intelligence clinical decision support solution to mitigate operator-dependent limitations during complex endoscopic procedures such as endoscopic submucosal dissection and peroral endoscopic myotomy, for example, bleeding and perforation. A DeepLabv3-based model was trained to delineate vessels, tissue structures and instruments on endoscopic still images from such procedures. The mean cross-validated Intersection over Union and Dice Score were 63% and 76%, respectively. Applied to standardised video clips from third-space endoscopic procedures, the algorithm showed a mean vessel detection rate of 85% with a false-positive rate of 0.75/min. These performance statistics suggest a potential clinical benefit for procedure safety, time and also training.