Current Evidence and Future Perspective of Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence Application for Early Gastric Cancer Diagnosis With Endoscopy: A Systematic and Meta-Analysis

Gastric cancer is the common malignancies from cancer worldwide. Endoscopy is currently the most effective method to detect early gastric cancer (EGC). However, endoscopy is not infallible and EGC can be missed during endoscopy. Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted endoscopic diagnosis is a recent...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Frontiers in medicine 2021-03, Vol.8, p.629080-629080
Hauptverfasser: Kailin, Jiang, Xiaotao, Jiang, Jinglin, Pan, Yi, Wen, Yuanchen, Huang, Senhui, Weng, Shaoyang, Lan, Kechao, Nie, Zhihua, Zheng, Shuling, Ji, Peng, Liu, Peiwu, Li, Fengbin, Liu
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 629080
container_issue
container_start_page 629080
container_title Frontiers in medicine
container_volume 8
creator Kailin, Jiang
Xiaotao, Jiang
Jinglin, Pan
Yi, Wen
Yuanchen, Huang
Senhui, Weng
Shaoyang, Lan
Kechao, Nie
Zhihua, Zheng
Shuling, Ji
Peng, Liu
Peiwu, Li
Fengbin, Liu
description Gastric cancer is the common malignancies from cancer worldwide. Endoscopy is currently the most effective method to detect early gastric cancer (EGC). However, endoscopy is not infallible and EGC can be missed during endoscopy. Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted endoscopic diagnosis is a recent hot spot of research. We aimed to quantify the diagnostic value of AI-assisted endoscopy in diagnosing EGC. The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library Databases were searched for articles on AI-assisted endoscopy application in EGC diagnosis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated, and the endoscopists' diagnostic value was evaluated for comparison. The subgroup was set according to endoscopy modality, and number of training images. A funnel plot was delineated to estimate the publication bias. 16 studies were included in this study. We indicated that the application of AI in endoscopic detection of EGC achieved an AUC of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94-0.97), a sensitivity of 86% (95% CI, 77-92%), and a specificity of 93% (95% CI, 89-96%). In AI-assisted EGC depth diagnosis, the AUC was 0.82(95% CI, 0.78-0.85), and the pooled sensitivity and specificity was 0.72(95% CI, 0.58-0.82) and 0.79(95% CI, 0.56-0.92). The funnel plot showed no publication bias. The AI applications for EGC diagnosis seemed to be more accurate than the endoscopists. AI assisted EGC diagnosis was more accurate than experts. More prospective studies are needed to make AI-aided EGC diagnosis universal in clinical practice.
doi_str_mv 10.3389/fmed.2021.629080
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_3389_fmed_2021_629080</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_199df5d7c4e24c948ed3506ec099854d</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2507731269</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-cb1573d244bd14a9ecaf736d17dc48a95567059141cd2ab39d4909a87cc0a97c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkk1vEzEQhlcIRKvSOyfkI5cEf-2HOSBFaVoiFYEECG7WZOxNXW3Wi-2NtP-JH4mTlKo9eWy_88x4_BbFW0bnQjTqQ7uzZs4pZ_OKK9rQF8U556qaNWXz--WT-Ky4jPGeUsoELyUTr4szIWqVd-K8-LscQ7B9Iqu9M7ZHS6A35HpMY7Dkmw1xsJjc3hLfkgXiGACnYxySax066Mi6T7br3PaYvRiGziEk53vS-kBWELqJ3EBMwSFZQtYEcuVg2_voIvnl0h1Z9cZH9MP0kSzI9ykmu8sAPHbyxSaYLXropix_U7xqoYv28mG9KH5er34sP89uv96sl4vbGcqKpxluWFkLw6XcGCZBWYS2FpVhtUHZgCrLqqalYpKh4bARykhFFTQ1IgVVo7go1ieu8XCvh-B2ECbtwenjgQ9bDfn92FnNlDJtaWqUlktUsrFGlLSySJVqSmky69OJNYyb_GGYZx2gewZ9ftO7O731e91Qemg0A94_AIL_M9qY9M5FzBOH3voxal7SuhaMVypL6UmKwccYbPtYhlF98Iw-eEYfPKNPnskp756295jw3yHiH80twTI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2507731269</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Current Evidence and Future Perspective of Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence Application for Early Gastric Cancer Diagnosis With Endoscopy: A Systematic and Meta-Analysis</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><creator>Kailin, Jiang ; Xiaotao, Jiang ; Jinglin, Pan ; Yi, Wen ; Yuanchen, Huang ; Senhui, Weng ; Shaoyang, Lan ; Kechao, Nie ; Zhihua, Zheng ; Shuling, Ji ; Peng, Liu ; Peiwu, Li ; Fengbin, Liu</creator><creatorcontrib>Kailin, Jiang ; Xiaotao, Jiang ; Jinglin, Pan ; Yi, Wen ; Yuanchen, Huang ; Senhui, Weng ; Shaoyang, Lan ; Kechao, Nie ; Zhihua, Zheng ; Shuling, Ji ; Peng, Liu ; Peiwu, Li ; Fengbin, Liu</creatorcontrib><description>Gastric cancer is the common malignancies from cancer worldwide. Endoscopy is currently the most effective method to detect early gastric cancer (EGC). However, endoscopy is not infallible and EGC can be missed during endoscopy. Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted endoscopic diagnosis is a recent hot spot of research. We aimed to quantify the diagnostic value of AI-assisted endoscopy in diagnosing EGC. The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library Databases were searched for articles on AI-assisted endoscopy application in EGC diagnosis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated, and the endoscopists' diagnostic value was evaluated for comparison. The subgroup was set according to endoscopy modality, and number of training images. A funnel plot was delineated to estimate the publication bias. 16 studies were included in this study. We indicated that the application of AI in endoscopic detection of EGC achieved an AUC of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94-0.97), a sensitivity of 86% (95% CI, 77-92%), and a specificity of 93% (95% CI, 89-96%). In AI-assisted EGC depth diagnosis, the AUC was 0.82(95% CI, 0.78-0.85), and the pooled sensitivity and specificity was 0.72(95% CI, 0.58-0.82) and 0.79(95% CI, 0.56-0.92). The funnel plot showed no publication bias. The AI applications for EGC diagnosis seemed to be more accurate than the endoscopists. AI assisted EGC diagnosis was more accurate than experts. More prospective studies are needed to make AI-aided EGC diagnosis universal in clinical practice.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2296-858X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2296-858X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.629080</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33791323</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Switzerland: Frontiers Media S.A</publisher><subject>artificial intelligence ; deep learning ; early gastric cancer ; endoscopy ; machine learning ; Medicine</subject><ispartof>Frontiers in medicine, 2021-03, Vol.8, p.629080-629080</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2021 Kailin, Xiaotao, Jinglin, Yi, Yuanchen, Senhui, Shaoyang, Kechao, Zhihua, Shuling, Peng, Peiwu and Fengbin.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 Jiang, Jiang, Pan, Wen, Huang, Weng, Lan, Nie, Zheng, Ji, Liu, Li and Liu. 2021 Jiang, Jiang, Pan, Wen, Huang, Weng, Lan, Nie, Zheng, Ji, Liu, Li and Liu</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-cb1573d244bd14a9ecaf736d17dc48a95567059141cd2ab39d4909a87cc0a97c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-cb1573d244bd14a9ecaf736d17dc48a95567059141cd2ab39d4909a87cc0a97c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8005567/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8005567/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,27901,27902,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33791323$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kailin, Jiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xiaotao, Jiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jinglin, Pan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yi, Wen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yuanchen, Huang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Senhui, Weng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaoyang, Lan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kechao, Nie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhihua, Zheng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shuling, Ji</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peng, Liu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peiwu, Li</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fengbin, Liu</creatorcontrib><title>Current Evidence and Future Perspective of Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence Application for Early Gastric Cancer Diagnosis With Endoscopy: A Systematic and Meta-Analysis</title><title>Frontiers in medicine</title><addtitle>Front Med (Lausanne)</addtitle><description>Gastric cancer is the common malignancies from cancer worldwide. Endoscopy is currently the most effective method to detect early gastric cancer (EGC). However, endoscopy is not infallible and EGC can be missed during endoscopy. Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted endoscopic diagnosis is a recent hot spot of research. We aimed to quantify the diagnostic value of AI-assisted endoscopy in diagnosing EGC. The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library Databases were searched for articles on AI-assisted endoscopy application in EGC diagnosis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated, and the endoscopists' diagnostic value was evaluated for comparison. The subgroup was set according to endoscopy modality, and number of training images. A funnel plot was delineated to estimate the publication bias. 16 studies were included in this study. We indicated that the application of AI in endoscopic detection of EGC achieved an AUC of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94-0.97), a sensitivity of 86% (95% CI, 77-92%), and a specificity of 93% (95% CI, 89-96%). In AI-assisted EGC depth diagnosis, the AUC was 0.82(95% CI, 0.78-0.85), and the pooled sensitivity and specificity was 0.72(95% CI, 0.58-0.82) and 0.79(95% CI, 0.56-0.92). The funnel plot showed no publication bias. The AI applications for EGC diagnosis seemed to be more accurate than the endoscopists. AI assisted EGC diagnosis was more accurate than experts. More prospective studies are needed to make AI-aided EGC diagnosis universal in clinical practice.</description><subject>artificial intelligence</subject><subject>deep learning</subject><subject>early gastric cancer</subject><subject>endoscopy</subject><subject>machine learning</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><issn>2296-858X</issn><issn>2296-858X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNpVkk1vEzEQhlcIRKvSOyfkI5cEf-2HOSBFaVoiFYEECG7WZOxNXW3Wi-2NtP-JH4mTlKo9eWy_88x4_BbFW0bnQjTqQ7uzZs4pZ_OKK9rQF8U556qaNWXz--WT-Ky4jPGeUsoELyUTr4szIWqVd-K8-LscQ7B9Iqu9M7ZHS6A35HpMY7Dkmw1xsJjc3hLfkgXiGACnYxySax066Mi6T7br3PaYvRiGziEk53vS-kBWELqJ3EBMwSFZQtYEcuVg2_voIvnl0h1Z9cZH9MP0kSzI9ykmu8sAPHbyxSaYLXropix_U7xqoYv28mG9KH5er34sP89uv96sl4vbGcqKpxluWFkLw6XcGCZBWYS2FpVhtUHZgCrLqqalYpKh4bARykhFFTQ1IgVVo7go1ieu8XCvh-B2ECbtwenjgQ9bDfn92FnNlDJtaWqUlktUsrFGlLSySJVqSmky69OJNYyb_GGYZx2gewZ9ftO7O731e91Qemg0A94_AIL_M9qY9M5FzBOH3voxal7SuhaMVypL6UmKwccYbPtYhlF98Iw-eEYfPKNPnskp756295jw3yHiH80twTI</recordid><startdate>20210315</startdate><enddate>20210315</enddate><creator>Kailin, Jiang</creator><creator>Xiaotao, Jiang</creator><creator>Jinglin, Pan</creator><creator>Yi, Wen</creator><creator>Yuanchen, Huang</creator><creator>Senhui, Weng</creator><creator>Shaoyang, Lan</creator><creator>Kechao, Nie</creator><creator>Zhihua, Zheng</creator><creator>Shuling, Ji</creator><creator>Peng, Liu</creator><creator>Peiwu, Li</creator><creator>Fengbin, Liu</creator><general>Frontiers Media S.A</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210315</creationdate><title>Current Evidence and Future Perspective of Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence Application for Early Gastric Cancer Diagnosis With Endoscopy: A Systematic and Meta-Analysis</title><author>Kailin, Jiang ; Xiaotao, Jiang ; Jinglin, Pan ; Yi, Wen ; Yuanchen, Huang ; Senhui, Weng ; Shaoyang, Lan ; Kechao, Nie ; Zhihua, Zheng ; Shuling, Ji ; Peng, Liu ; Peiwu, Li ; Fengbin, Liu</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-cb1573d244bd14a9ecaf736d17dc48a95567059141cd2ab39d4909a87cc0a97c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>artificial intelligence</topic><topic>deep learning</topic><topic>early gastric cancer</topic><topic>endoscopy</topic><topic>machine learning</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kailin, Jiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xiaotao, Jiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jinglin, Pan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yi, Wen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yuanchen, Huang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Senhui, Weng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaoyang, Lan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kechao, Nie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhihua, Zheng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shuling, Ji</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peng, Liu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peiwu, Li</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fengbin, Liu</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Frontiers in medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kailin, Jiang</au><au>Xiaotao, Jiang</au><au>Jinglin, Pan</au><au>Yi, Wen</au><au>Yuanchen, Huang</au><au>Senhui, Weng</au><au>Shaoyang, Lan</au><au>Kechao, Nie</au><au>Zhihua, Zheng</au><au>Shuling, Ji</au><au>Peng, Liu</au><au>Peiwu, Li</au><au>Fengbin, Liu</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Current Evidence and Future Perspective of Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence Application for Early Gastric Cancer Diagnosis With Endoscopy: A Systematic and Meta-Analysis</atitle><jtitle>Frontiers in medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Front Med (Lausanne)</addtitle><date>2021-03-15</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>8</volume><spage>629080</spage><epage>629080</epage><pages>629080-629080</pages><issn>2296-858X</issn><eissn>2296-858X</eissn><abstract>Gastric cancer is the common malignancies from cancer worldwide. Endoscopy is currently the most effective method to detect early gastric cancer (EGC). However, endoscopy is not infallible and EGC can be missed during endoscopy. Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted endoscopic diagnosis is a recent hot spot of research. We aimed to quantify the diagnostic value of AI-assisted endoscopy in diagnosing EGC. The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library Databases were searched for articles on AI-assisted endoscopy application in EGC diagnosis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated, and the endoscopists' diagnostic value was evaluated for comparison. The subgroup was set according to endoscopy modality, and number of training images. A funnel plot was delineated to estimate the publication bias. 16 studies were included in this study. We indicated that the application of AI in endoscopic detection of EGC achieved an AUC of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94-0.97), a sensitivity of 86% (95% CI, 77-92%), and a specificity of 93% (95% CI, 89-96%). In AI-assisted EGC depth diagnosis, the AUC was 0.82(95% CI, 0.78-0.85), and the pooled sensitivity and specificity was 0.72(95% CI, 0.58-0.82) and 0.79(95% CI, 0.56-0.92). The funnel plot showed no publication bias. The AI applications for EGC diagnosis seemed to be more accurate than the endoscopists. AI assisted EGC diagnosis was more accurate than experts. More prospective studies are needed to make AI-aided EGC diagnosis universal in clinical practice.</abstract><cop>Switzerland</cop><pub>Frontiers Media S.A</pub><pmid>33791323</pmid><doi>10.3389/fmed.2021.629080</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2296-858X
ispartof Frontiers in medicine, 2021-03, Vol.8, p.629080-629080
issn 2296-858X
2296-858X
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_3389_fmed_2021_629080
source DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; PubMed Central Open Access
subjects artificial intelligence
deep learning
early gastric cancer
endoscopy
machine learning
Medicine
title Current Evidence and Future Perspective of Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence Application for Early Gastric Cancer Diagnosis With Endoscopy: A Systematic and Meta-Analysis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-18T21%3A17%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Current%20Evidence%20and%20Future%20Perspective%20of%20Accuracy%20of%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20Application%20for%20Early%20Gastric%20Cancer%20Diagnosis%20With%20Endoscopy:%20A%20Systematic%20and%20Meta-Analysis&rft.jtitle=Frontiers%20in%20medicine&rft.au=Kailin,%20Jiang&rft.date=2021-03-15&rft.volume=8&rft.spage=629080&rft.epage=629080&rft.pages=629080-629080&rft.issn=2296-858X&rft.eissn=2296-858X&rft_id=info:doi/10.3389/fmed.2021.629080&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2507731269%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2507731269&rft_id=info:pmid/33791323&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_199df5d7c4e24c948ed3506ec099854d&rfr_iscdi=true