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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |
_version_ | 1784752411614642176 |
---|---|
author | Visaggi, Pierfrancesco Barberio, Brigida Gregori, Dario Azzolina, Danila Martinato, Matteo Hassan, Cesare Sharma, Prateek Savarino, Edoardo de Bortoli, Nicola |
author_facet | Visaggi, Pierfrancesco Barberio, Brigida Gregori, Dario Azzolina, Danila Martinato, Matteo Hassan, Cesare Sharma, Prateek Savarino, Edoardo de Bortoli, Nicola |
author_sort | Visaggi, Pierfrancesco |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9305819 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93058192022-07-28 Systematic review with meta‐analysis: artificial intelligence in the diagnosis of oesophageal diseases Visaggi, Pierfrancesco Barberio, Brigida Gregori, Dario Azzolina, Danila Martinato, Matteo Hassan, Cesare Sharma, Prateek Savarino, Edoardo de Bortoli, Nicola Aliment Pharmacol Ther Meta Analysis 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. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-01-30 2022-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9305819/ /pubmed/35098562 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apt.16778 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Meta Analysis Visaggi, Pierfrancesco Barberio, Brigida Gregori, Dario Azzolina, Danila Martinato, Matteo Hassan, Cesare Sharma, Prateek Savarino, Edoardo de Bortoli, Nicola Systematic review with meta‐analysis: artificial intelligence in the diagnosis of oesophageal diseases |
title | Systematic review with meta‐analysis: artificial intelligence in the diagnosis of oesophageal diseases |
title_full | Systematic review with meta‐analysis: artificial intelligence in the diagnosis of oesophageal diseases |
title_fullStr | Systematic review with meta‐analysis: artificial intelligence in the diagnosis of oesophageal diseases |
title_full_unstemmed | Systematic review with meta‐analysis: artificial intelligence in the diagnosis of oesophageal diseases |
title_short | Systematic review with meta‐analysis: artificial intelligence in the diagnosis of oesophageal diseases |
title_sort | systematic review with meta‐analysis: artificial intelligence in the diagnosis of oesophageal diseases |
topic | Meta Analysis |
url | 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 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT visaggipierfrancesco systematicreviewwithmetaanalysisartificialintelligenceinthediagnosisofoesophagealdiseases AT barberiobrigida systematicreviewwithmetaanalysisartificialintelligenceinthediagnosisofoesophagealdiseases AT gregoridario systematicreviewwithmetaanalysisartificialintelligenceinthediagnosisofoesophagealdiseases AT azzolinadanila systematicreviewwithmetaanalysisartificialintelligenceinthediagnosisofoesophagealdiseases AT martinatomatteo systematicreviewwithmetaanalysisartificialintelligenceinthediagnosisofoesophagealdiseases AT hassancesare systematicreviewwithmetaanalysisartificialintelligenceinthediagnosisofoesophagealdiseases AT sharmaprateek systematicreviewwithmetaanalysisartificialintelligenceinthediagnosisofoesophagealdiseases AT savarinoedoardo systematicreviewwithmetaanalysisartificialintelligenceinthediagnosisofoesophagealdiseases AT debortolinicola systematicreviewwithmetaanalysisartificialintelligenceinthediagnosisofoesophagealdiseases |