Refine
Document Type
- conference proceeding (presentation, abstract) (4) (remove)
Language
- English (4) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- no (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- Artificial Intelligence (1)
- Barrett's Esophagus (1)
- Diagnose (1)
- Künstliche Intelligenz (1)
- Speiseröhrenkrankheit (1)
Institute
Begutachtungsstatus
- peer-reviewed (3)
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.
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.
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.
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.