Open Access

The early diagnosis of cancer in Barrett’s esophagus is crucial for improving the prognosis. However, identifying Barrett’s esophagus-related neoplasia (BERN) is challenging, even for experts [1]. Four-quadrant biopsies may improve the detection of neoplasia, but they can be associated with sampling errors. The application of artificial intelligence (AI) to the assessment of Barrett’s esophagus could improve the diagnosis of BERN, and this has been demonstrated in both preclinical and clinical studies [2] [3]. In this video demonstration, we show the accurate detection and delineation of BERN in two patients ([Video 1]). In part 1, the AI system detects a mucosal cancer about 20 mm in size and accurately delineates the lesion in both white-light and narrow-band imaging. In part 2, a small island of BERN with high-grade dysplasia is detected and delineated in white-light, narrow-band, and texture and color enhancement imaging. The video shows the results using a transparent overlay of the mucosal cancer in real time as well as a full segmentation preview. Additionally, the optical flow allows for the assessment of endoscope movement, something which is inversely related to the reliability of the AI prediction. We demonstrate that multimodal imaging can be applied to the AI-assisted detection and segmentation of even small focal lesions in real time.

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.

Objective Despite high stand-alone performance, studies demonstrate that artificial intelligence (AI)-supported endoscopic diagnostics often fall short in clinical applications due to human-AI interaction factors. This video-based trial on Barrett's esophagus aimed to investigate how examiner behavior, their levels of confidence, and system usability influence the diagnostic outcomes of AI-assisted endoscopy. Methods The present analysis employed data from a multicenter randomized controlled tandem video trial involving 22 endoscopists with varying degrees of expertise. Participants were tasked with evaluating a set of 96 endoscopic videos of Barrett's esophagus in two distinct rounds, with and without AI assistance. Diagnostic confidence levels were recorded, and decision changes were categorized according to the AI prediction. Additional surveys assessed user experience and system usability ratings. Results AI assistance significantly increased examiner confidence levels (p < 0.001) and accuracy. Withdrawing AI assistance decreased confidence (p < 0.001), but not accuracy. Experts consistently reported higher confidence than non-experts (p < 0.001), regardless of performance. Despite improved confidence, correct AI guidance was disregarded in 16% of all cases, and 9% of initially correct diagnoses were changed to incorrect ones. Overreliance on AI, algorithm aversion, and uncertainty in AI predictions were identified as key factors influencing outcomes. The System Usability Scale questionnaire scores indicated good to excellent usability, with non-experts scoring 73.5 and experts 85.6. Conclusions Our findings highlight the pivotal function of examiner behavior in AI-assisted endoscopy. To fully realize the benefits of AI, implementing explainable AI, improving user interfaces, and providing targeted training are essential. Addressing these factors could enhance diagnostic accuracy and confidence in clinical practice.

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.

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.