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
_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