Cargando…
Artificial Intelligence–Assisted Endoscopic Diagnosis of Early Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic ability of artificial intelligence (AI) in the detection of early upper gastrointestinal cancer (EUGIC) using endoscopic images. METHODS: Databases were searched for studies on AI-assisted diagnosis of EUGIC using endoscopic images. The p...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9229174/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35756602 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.855175 |
Sumario: | OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic ability of artificial intelligence (AI) in the detection of early upper gastrointestinal cancer (EUGIC) using endoscopic images. METHODS: Databases were searched for studies on AI-assisted diagnosis of EUGIC using endoscopic images. The pooled area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 34 studies were included in our final analysis. Among the 17 image-based studies investigating early esophageal cancer (EEC) detection, the pooled AUC, sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were 0.98, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.95–0.96), 0.95 (95% CI, 0.94–0.95), 10.76 (95% CI, 7.33–15.79), 0.07 (95% CI, 0.04–0.11), and 173.93 (95% CI, 81.79–369.83), respectively. Among the seven patient-based studies investigating EEC detection, the pooled AUC, sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were 0.98, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91–0.96), 0.90 (95% CI, 0.88–0.92), 6.14 (95% CI, 2.06–18.30), 0.07 (95% CI, 0.04–0.11), and 69.13 (95% CI, 14.73–324.45), respectively. Among the 15 image-based studies investigating early gastric cancer (EGC) detection, the pooled AUC, sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were 0.94, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.87–0.88), 0.88 (95% CI, 0.87–0.88), 7.20 (95% CI, 4.32–12.00), 0.14 (95% CI, 0.09–0.23), and 48.77 (95% CI, 24.98–95.19), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of our meta-analysis, AI exhibited high accuracy in diagnosis of EUGIC. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier PROSPERO (CRD42021270443). |
---|