内镜超声人工智能辅助胃肠道间质瘤诊断预测:系统综述和荟萃分析。

IF 1.4 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Rômulo Sérgio Araújo Gomes, Guilherme Henrique Peixoto de Oliveira, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura, Ana Paula Samy Tanaka Kotinda, Carolina Ogawa Matsubayashi, Bruno Salomão Hirsch, Matheus de Oliveira Veras, João Guilherme Ribeiro Jordão Sasso, Roberto Paolo Trasolini, Wanderley Marques Bernardo, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura
{"title":"内镜超声人工智能辅助胃肠道间质瘤诊断预测:系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Rômulo Sérgio Araújo Gomes,&nbsp;Guilherme Henrique Peixoto de Oliveira,&nbsp;Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura,&nbsp;Ana Paula Samy Tanaka Kotinda,&nbsp;Carolina Ogawa Matsubayashi,&nbsp;Bruno Salomão Hirsch,&nbsp;Matheus de Oliveira Veras,&nbsp;João Guilherme Ribeiro Jordão Sasso,&nbsp;Roberto Paolo Trasolini,&nbsp;Wanderley Marques Bernardo,&nbsp;Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura","doi":"10.4253/wjge.v15.i8.528","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Subepithelial lesions (SELs) are gastrointestinal tumors with heterogeneous malignant potential. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is the leading method for evaluation, but without histopathological analysis, precise differentiation of SEL risk is limited. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a promising aid for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal lesions in the absence of histopathology.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine the diagnostic accuracy of AI-assisted EUS in diagnosing SELs, especially lesions originating from the muscularis propria layer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched. Patients of any sex and > 18 years, with SELs assessed by EUS AI-assisted, with previous histopathological diagnosis, and presented sufficient data values which were extracted to construct a 2 × 2 table. The reference standard was histopathology. The primary outcome was the accuracy of AI for gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Secondary outcomes were AI-assisted EUS diagnosis for GIST <i>vs</i> gastrointestinal leiomyoma (GIL), the diagnostic performance of experienced endoscopists for GIST, and GIST <i>vs</i> GIL. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were calculated. The corresponding summary receiver operating characteristic curve and post-test probability were also analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight retrospective studies with a total of 2355 patients and 44154 images were included in this meta-analysis. The AI-assisted EUS for GIST diagnosis showed a sensitivity of 92% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89-0.95; <i>P</i> < 0.01), specificity of 80% (95%CI: 0.75-0.85; <i>P</i> < 0.01), and area under the curve (AUC) of 0.949. For diagnosis of GIST <i>vs</i> GIL by AI-assisted EUS, specificity was 90% (95%CI: 0.88-0.95; <i>P</i> = 0.02) and AUC of 0.966. The experienced endoscopists' values were sensitivity of 72% (95%CI: 0.67-0.76; <i>P</i> < 0.01), specificity of 70% (95%CI: 0.64-0.76; <i>P</i> < 0.01), and AUC of 0.777 for GIST. Evaluating GIST <i>vs</i> GIL, the experts achieved a sensitivity of 73% (95%CI: 0.65-0.80; <i>P</i> < 0.01) and an AUC of 0.819.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>AI-assisted EUS has high diagnostic accuracy for fourth-layer SELs, especially for GIST, demonstrating superiority compared to experienced endoscopists' and improving their diagnostic performance in the absence of invasive procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":23953,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","volume":"15 8","pages":"528-539"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/74/cd/WJGE-15-528.PMC10473903.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Endoscopic ultrasound artificial intelligence-assisted for prediction of gastrointestinal stromal tumors diagnosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Rômulo Sérgio Araújo Gomes,&nbsp;Guilherme Henrique Peixoto de Oliveira,&nbsp;Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura,&nbsp;Ana Paula Samy Tanaka Kotinda,&nbsp;Carolina Ogawa Matsubayashi,&nbsp;Bruno Salomão Hirsch,&nbsp;Matheus de Oliveira Veras,&nbsp;João Guilherme Ribeiro Jordão Sasso,&nbsp;Roberto Paolo Trasolini,&nbsp;Wanderley Marques Bernardo,&nbsp;Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura\",\"doi\":\"10.4253/wjge.v15.i8.528\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Subepithelial lesions (SELs) are gastrointestinal tumors with heterogeneous malignant potential. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is the leading method for evaluation, but without histopathological analysis, precise differentiation of SEL risk is limited. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a promising aid for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal lesions in the absence of histopathology.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine the diagnostic accuracy of AI-assisted EUS in diagnosing SELs, especially lesions originating from the muscularis propria layer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched. Patients of any sex and > 18 years, with SELs assessed by EUS AI-assisted, with previous histopathological diagnosis, and presented sufficient data values which were extracted to construct a 2 × 2 table. The reference standard was histopathology. The primary outcome was the accuracy of AI for gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Secondary outcomes were AI-assisted EUS diagnosis for GIST <i>vs</i> gastrointestinal leiomyoma (GIL), the diagnostic performance of experienced endoscopists for GIST, and GIST <i>vs</i> GIL. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were calculated. The corresponding summary receiver operating characteristic curve and post-test probability were also analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight retrospective studies with a total of 2355 patients and 44154 images were included in this meta-analysis. The AI-assisted EUS for GIST diagnosis showed a sensitivity of 92% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89-0.95; <i>P</i> < 0.01), specificity of 80% (95%CI: 0.75-0.85; <i>P</i> < 0.01), and area under the curve (AUC) of 0.949. For diagnosis of GIST <i>vs</i> GIL by AI-assisted EUS, specificity was 90% (95%CI: 0.88-0.95; <i>P</i> = 0.02) and AUC of 0.966. The experienced endoscopists' values were sensitivity of 72% (95%CI: 0.67-0.76; <i>P</i> < 0.01), specificity of 70% (95%CI: 0.64-0.76; <i>P</i> < 0.01), and AUC of 0.777 for GIST. Evaluating GIST <i>vs</i> GIL, the experts achieved a sensitivity of 73% (95%CI: 0.65-0.80; <i>P</i> < 0.01) and an AUC of 0.819.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>AI-assisted EUS has high diagnostic accuracy for fourth-layer SELs, especially for GIST, demonstrating superiority compared to experienced endoscopists' and improving their diagnostic performance in the absence of invasive procedures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23953,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy\",\"volume\":\"15 8\",\"pages\":\"528-539\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/74/cd/WJGE-15-528.PMC10473903.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v15.i8.528\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v15.i8.528","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:上皮下病变(SELs)是一种具有异质性恶性潜能的胃肠道肿瘤。超声内镜(EUS)是评估的主要方法,但没有组织病理学分析,限制了SEL风险的精确区分。人工智能(AI)是在没有组织病理学的情况下诊断胃肠道病变的一种很有前途的辅助手段。目的:探讨人工智能辅助EUS对SELs的诊断准确性,尤其是对源自固有肌层病变的诊断准确性。方法:检索PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆等电子数据库。任何性别,> 18岁的患者,通过EUS ai辅助评估SELs,既往有组织病理学诊断,并提供足够的数据值,提取这些数据值以构建2 × 2表。参照标准为组织病理学。主要终点是人工智能对胃肠道间质瘤(GIST)的准确性。次要结果是人工智能辅助EUS对GIST与胃肠道平滑肌瘤(GIL)的诊断,经验丰富的内镜医师对GIST的诊断表现,以及GIST与GIL的比较。计算敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值。分析了相应的接受者工作特征曲线和后验概率。结果:8项回顾性研究共纳入2355例患者和44154张图像。人工智能辅助EUS诊断GIST的灵敏度为92%[95%置信区间(CI): 0.89-0.95;P < 0.01),特异性为80% (95%CI: 0.75 ~ 0.85;P < 0.01),曲线下面积(AUC)为0.949。人工智能辅助EUS诊断GIST与GIL的特异性为90% (95%CI: 0.88-0.95;P = 0.02), AUC为0.966。经验丰富的内窥镜医师的敏感度为72% (95%CI: 0.67-0.76;P < 0.01),特异性70% (95%CI: 0.64-0.76;P < 0.01), GIST的AUC为0.777。评估GIST与GIL,专家获得了73%的敏感性(95%CI: 0.65-0.80;P < 0.01), AUC为0.819。结论:人工智能辅助EUS对四层SELs,特别是GIST的诊断准确率较高,与经验丰富的内窥镜医师相比具有优势,提高了内窥镜医师在无创手术情况下的诊断水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Endoscopic ultrasound artificial intelligence-assisted for prediction of gastrointestinal stromal tumors diagnosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Subepithelial lesions (SELs) are gastrointestinal tumors with heterogeneous malignant potential. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is the leading method for evaluation, but without histopathological analysis, precise differentiation of SEL risk is limited. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a promising aid for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal lesions in the absence of histopathology.

Aim: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of AI-assisted EUS in diagnosing SELs, especially lesions originating from the muscularis propria layer.

Methods: Electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched. Patients of any sex and > 18 years, with SELs assessed by EUS AI-assisted, with previous histopathological diagnosis, and presented sufficient data values which were extracted to construct a 2 × 2 table. The reference standard was histopathology. The primary outcome was the accuracy of AI for gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Secondary outcomes were AI-assisted EUS diagnosis for GIST vs gastrointestinal leiomyoma (GIL), the diagnostic performance of experienced endoscopists for GIST, and GIST vs GIL. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were calculated. The corresponding summary receiver operating characteristic curve and post-test probability were also analyzed.

Results: Eight retrospective studies with a total of 2355 patients and 44154 images were included in this meta-analysis. The AI-assisted EUS for GIST diagnosis showed a sensitivity of 92% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89-0.95; P < 0.01), specificity of 80% (95%CI: 0.75-0.85; P < 0.01), and area under the curve (AUC) of 0.949. For diagnosis of GIST vs GIL by AI-assisted EUS, specificity was 90% (95%CI: 0.88-0.95; P = 0.02) and AUC of 0.966. The experienced endoscopists' values were sensitivity of 72% (95%CI: 0.67-0.76; P < 0.01), specificity of 70% (95%CI: 0.64-0.76; P < 0.01), and AUC of 0.777 for GIST. Evaluating GIST vs GIL, the experts achieved a sensitivity of 73% (95%CI: 0.65-0.80; P < 0.01) and an AUC of 0.819.

Conclusion: AI-assisted EUS has high diagnostic accuracy for fourth-layer SELs, especially for GIST, demonstrating superiority compared to experienced endoscopists' and improving their diagnostic performance in the absence of invasive procedures.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
5.00%
发文量
1164
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信