Cargando…

Impact of Computer-Assisted System on the Learning Curve and Quality in Esophagogastroduodenoscopy: Randomized Controlled Trial

Background and Aims: To investigate the impact of the computer-assisted system on esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) training for novice trainees in a prospective randomized controlled trial. Methods: We have constructed a computer-aided system (CAD) using retrospective images based on deep learning w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huang, Li, Liu, Jun, Wu, Lianlian, Xu, Ming, Yao, Liwen, Zhang, Lihui, Shang, Renduo, Zhang, Mengjiao, Xiong, Qiutang, Wang, Dawei, Dong, Zehua, Xu, Youming, Li, Jia, Zhu, Yijie, Gong, Dexin, Wu, Huiling, Yu, Honggang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8713729/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34970565
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.781256
Descripción
Sumario:Background and Aims: To investigate the impact of the computer-assisted system on esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) training for novice trainees in a prospective randomized controlled trial. Methods: We have constructed a computer-aided system (CAD) using retrospective images based on deep learning which could automatically monitor the 26 anatomical landmarks of the upper digestive tract and document standard photos. Six novice trainees were allocated and grouped into the CAD group and control group. Each of them took the training course, pre and post-test, and EGD examination scored by two experts. The CAD group was trained with the assistance of the CAD system and the control group without. Results: Both groups achieved great improvements in EGD skills. The CAD group received a higher examination grading score in the EGD examination (72.83 ± 16.12 vs. 67.26 ± 15.64, p = 0.039), especially in the mucosa observation (26.40 ± 6.13 vs. 24.11 ± 6.21, p = 0.020) and quality of collected images (7.29 ± 1.09 vs. 6.70 ± 1.05). The CAD showed a lower blind spot rate (2.19 ± 2.28 vs. 3.92 ± 3.30, p = 0.008) compared with the control group. Conclusion: The artificial intelligence assistant system displayed assistant capacity on standard EGD training, and assisted trainees in achieving a learning curve with high operation quality, which has great potential for application. Clinical Trial Registration: This trial is registered at https:/clinicaltrials.gov/, number NCT04682821.