Cargando…

Systematic review with meta‐analysis: artificial intelligence in the diagnosis of oesophageal diseases

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) has recently been applied to endoscopy and questionnaires for the evaluation of oesophageal diseases (ODs). AIM: We performed a systematic review with meta‐analysis to evaluate the performance of AI in the diagnosis of malignant and benign OD. METHODS: We sea...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Visaggi, Pierfrancesco, Barberio, Brigida, Gregori, Dario, Azzolina, Danila, Martinato, Matteo, Hassan, Cesare, Sharma, Prateek, Savarino, Edoardo, de Bortoli, Nicola
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9305819/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35098562
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apt.16778
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) has recently been applied to endoscopy and questionnaires for the evaluation of oesophageal diseases (ODs). AIM: We performed a systematic review with meta‐analysis to evaluate the performance of AI in the diagnosis of malignant and benign OD. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMBASE Classic and the Cochrane Library. A bivariate random‐effect model was used to calculate pooled diagnostic efficacy of AI models and endoscopists. The reference tests were histology for neoplasms and the clinical and instrumental diagnosis for gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The pooled area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (PLR and NLR) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were estimated. RESULTS: For the diagnosis of Barrett's neoplasia, AI had AUROC of 0.90, sensitivity 0.89, specificity 0.86, PLR 6.50, NLR 0.13 and DOR 50.53. AI models’ performance was comparable with that of endoscopists (P = 0.35). For the diagnosis of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma, the AUROC, sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR were 0.97, 0.95, 0.92, 12.65, 0.05 and DOR 258.36, respectively. In this task, AI performed better than endoscopists although without statistically significant differences. In the detection of abnormal intrapapillary capillary loops, the performance of AI was: AUROC 0.98, sensitivity 0.94, specificity 0.94, PLR 14.75, NLR 0.07 and DOR 225.83. For the diagnosis of GERD based on questionnaires, the AUROC, sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR were 0.99, 0.97, 0.97, 38.26, 0.03 and 1159.6, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: AI demonstrated high performance in the clinical and endoscopic diagnosis of OD.