Comparing blind spots of unsedated ultrafine, sedated, and unsedated conventional gastroscopy with and without artificial intelligence: a prospective, single-blind, 3-parallel-group, randomized, single-center trial
EGD is the most vital procedure for the diagnosis of upper GI lesions. We aimed to compare the performance of unsedated ultrathin transoral endoscopy (U-TOE), unsedated conventional EGD (C-EGD), and sedated C-EGD with or without the use of an artificial intelligence (AI) system. In this prospective,...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2020-02, Vol.91 (2), p.332-339.e3 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 339.e3 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 332 |
| container_title | Gastrointestinal endoscopy |
| container_volume | 91 |
| creator | Chen, Di Wu, Lianlian Li, Yanxia Zhang, Jun Liu, Jun Huang, Li Jiang, Xiaoda Huang, Xu Mu, Ganggang Hu, Shan Hu, Xiao Gong, Dexin He, Xinqi Yu, Honggang |
| description | EGD is the most vital procedure for the diagnosis of upper GI lesions. We aimed to compare the performance of unsedated ultrathin transoral endoscopy (U-TOE), unsedated conventional EGD (C-EGD), and sedated C-EGD with or without the use of an artificial intelligence (AI) system.
In this prospective, single-blind, 3-parallel-group, randomized, single-center trial, 437 patients scheduled to undergo outpatient EGD were randomized to unsedated U-TOE, unsedated C-EGD, or sedated C-EGD, and each group was then divided into 2 subgroups: with or without the assistance of an AI system to monitor blind spots during EGD. The primary outcome was the blind spot rate of these 3 groups with the assistance of AI. The secondary outcomes were to compare blind spot rates of unsedated U-TOE, unsedated, and sedated C-EGD with or without the assistance of AI, respectively, and the concordance between AI and the endoscopists’ review.
The blind spot rate with AI-assisted sedated C-EGD was significantly lower than that of unsedated U-TOE and unsedated C-EGD (3.42% vs 21.77% vs 31.23%, respectively; P < .05). The blind spot rate of the AI subgroup was lower than that of the control subgroup in all 3 groups (sedated C-EGD: 3.42% vs 22.46%, P < .001; unsedated U-TOE: 21.77% vs 29.92%, P < .001; unsedated C-EGD: 31.23% vs 42.46%, P < .001).
The blind spot rate of sedated C-EGD was the lowest among the 3 types of EGD, and the addition of AI had a maximal effect on sedated C-EGD. (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR1900020920.)
[Display omitted] |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.gie.2019.09.016 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2295481879</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0016510719322497</els_id><sourcerecordid>2295481879</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-1d3ecb993309f51f4d3df68b8f321760436f8b0511aac89709852c73d56c86113</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc2O0zAUhSMEYsrAA7BBXrJoim_cODGsUAUD0khsYG05_gmuHDvYTtHwoDwPzrQDOyRLtq6-e3zuPVX1EvAOMNA3x91o9a7BwHa4HKCPqg1g1tW069jjaoNLqW4Bd1fVs5SOGOO-IfC0uiLQ7oE2dFP9PoRpFtH6EQ3OeoXSHHJCwaDFJ61E1gotLkdhrNdbdCltkSjoP0IGf9I-2-CFQ6NIOYYkw3yHftr8_Z5dH2HJSMRsjZW2cNZn7ZwdtZf6LRJoLk2zltme1o-KI6fre09bROriUTinXT3GsMxbFItomOyv1cuFlcWBjijHIv68emKES_rF5b6uvn388PXwqb79cvP58P62lqQluQZFtBwYIwQz04LZK6IM7YfekAY6iveEmn7ALYAQsmcdZn3byI6olsqeApDr6vVZt5j_seiU-WSTLGMJr8OSeNOwdt9D37GCwhmVZc4UteFztJOIdxwwX-PkR17i5GucHJcDtPS8usgvw6TV346H_Arw7gzoMuTJ6siTtOtClY1llVwF-x_5PzjPtUA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2295481879</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing blind spots of unsedated ultrafine, sedated, and unsedated conventional gastroscopy with and without artificial intelligence: a prospective, single-blind, 3-parallel-group, randomized, single-center trial</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Chen, Di ; Wu, Lianlian ; Li, Yanxia ; Zhang, Jun ; Liu, Jun ; Huang, Li ; Jiang, Xiaoda ; Huang, Xu ; Mu, Ganggang ; Hu, Shan ; Hu, Xiao ; Gong, Dexin ; He, Xinqi ; Yu, Honggang</creator><creatorcontrib>Chen, Di ; Wu, Lianlian ; Li, Yanxia ; Zhang, Jun ; Liu, Jun ; Huang, Li ; Jiang, Xiaoda ; Huang, Xu ; Mu, Ganggang ; Hu, Shan ; Hu, Xiao ; Gong, Dexin ; He, Xinqi ; Yu, Honggang</creatorcontrib><description>EGD is the most vital procedure for the diagnosis of upper GI lesions. We aimed to compare the performance of unsedated ultrathin transoral endoscopy (U-TOE), unsedated conventional EGD (C-EGD), and sedated C-EGD with or without the use of an artificial intelligence (AI) system.
In this prospective, single-blind, 3-parallel-group, randomized, single-center trial, 437 patients scheduled to undergo outpatient EGD were randomized to unsedated U-TOE, unsedated C-EGD, or sedated C-EGD, and each group was then divided into 2 subgroups: with or without the assistance of an AI system to monitor blind spots during EGD. The primary outcome was the blind spot rate of these 3 groups with the assistance of AI. The secondary outcomes were to compare blind spot rates of unsedated U-TOE, unsedated, and sedated C-EGD with or without the assistance of AI, respectively, and the concordance between AI and the endoscopists’ review.
The blind spot rate with AI-assisted sedated C-EGD was significantly lower than that of unsedated U-TOE and unsedated C-EGD (3.42% vs 21.77% vs 31.23%, respectively; P < .05). The blind spot rate of the AI subgroup was lower than that of the control subgroup in all 3 groups (sedated C-EGD: 3.42% vs 22.46%, P < .001; unsedated U-TOE: 21.77% vs 29.92%, P < .001; unsedated C-EGD: 31.23% vs 42.46%, P < .001).
The blind spot rate of sedated C-EGD was the lowest among the 3 types of EGD, and the addition of AI had a maximal effect on sedated C-EGD. (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR1900020920.)
[Display omitted]</description><identifier>ISSN: 0016-5107</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6779</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.09.016</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31541626</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Anxiety ; Artificial Intelligence ; Conscious Sedation - methods ; Endoscopy, Digestive System - methods ; Female ; Gastroscopes ; Gastroscopy - methods ; Humans ; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Pain, Procedural ; Prospective Studies ; Single-Blind Method</subject><ispartof>Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2020-02, Vol.91 (2), p.332-339.e3</ispartof><rights>2020 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-1d3ecb993309f51f4d3df68b8f321760436f8b0511aac89709852c73d56c86113</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-1d3ecb993309f51f4d3df68b8f321760436f8b0511aac89709852c73d56c86113</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2019.09.016$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31541626$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chen, Di</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Lianlian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Yanxia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Li</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiang, Xiaoda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Xu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mu, Ganggang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hu, Shan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hu, Xiao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gong, Dexin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>He, Xinqi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Honggang</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing blind spots of unsedated ultrafine, sedated, and unsedated conventional gastroscopy with and without artificial intelligence: a prospective, single-blind, 3-parallel-group, randomized, single-center trial</title><title>Gastrointestinal endoscopy</title><addtitle>Gastrointest Endosc</addtitle><description>EGD is the most vital procedure for the diagnosis of upper GI lesions. We aimed to compare the performance of unsedated ultrathin transoral endoscopy (U-TOE), unsedated conventional EGD (C-EGD), and sedated C-EGD with or without the use of an artificial intelligence (AI) system.
In this prospective, single-blind, 3-parallel-group, randomized, single-center trial, 437 patients scheduled to undergo outpatient EGD were randomized to unsedated U-TOE, unsedated C-EGD, or sedated C-EGD, and each group was then divided into 2 subgroups: with or without the assistance of an AI system to monitor blind spots during EGD. The primary outcome was the blind spot rate of these 3 groups with the assistance of AI. The secondary outcomes were to compare blind spot rates of unsedated U-TOE, unsedated, and sedated C-EGD with or without the assistance of AI, respectively, and the concordance between AI and the endoscopists’ review.
The blind spot rate with AI-assisted sedated C-EGD was significantly lower than that of unsedated U-TOE and unsedated C-EGD (3.42% vs 21.77% vs 31.23%, respectively; P < .05). The blind spot rate of the AI subgroup was lower than that of the control subgroup in all 3 groups (sedated C-EGD: 3.42% vs 22.46%, P < .001; unsedated U-TOE: 21.77% vs 29.92%, P < .001; unsedated C-EGD: 31.23% vs 42.46%, P < .001).
The blind spot rate of sedated C-EGD was the lowest among the 3 types of EGD, and the addition of AI had a maximal effect on sedated C-EGD. (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR1900020920.)
[Display omitted]</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Anxiety</subject><subject>Artificial Intelligence</subject><subject>Conscious Sedation - methods</subject><subject>Endoscopy, Digestive System - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gastroscopes</subject><subject>Gastroscopy - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Pain, Procedural</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Single-Blind Method</subject><issn>0016-5107</issn><issn>1097-6779</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc2O0zAUhSMEYsrAA7BBXrJoim_cODGsUAUD0khsYG05_gmuHDvYTtHwoDwPzrQDOyRLtq6-e3zuPVX1EvAOMNA3x91o9a7BwHa4HKCPqg1g1tW069jjaoNLqW4Bd1fVs5SOGOO-IfC0uiLQ7oE2dFP9PoRpFtH6EQ3OeoXSHHJCwaDFJ61E1gotLkdhrNdbdCltkSjoP0IGf9I-2-CFQ6NIOYYkw3yHftr8_Z5dH2HJSMRsjZW2cNZn7ZwdtZf6LRJoLk2zltme1o-KI6fre09bROriUTinXT3GsMxbFItomOyv1cuFlcWBjijHIv68emKES_rF5b6uvn388PXwqb79cvP58P62lqQluQZFtBwYIwQz04LZK6IM7YfekAY6iveEmn7ALYAQsmcdZn3byI6olsqeApDr6vVZt5j_seiU-WSTLGMJr8OSeNOwdt9D37GCwhmVZc4UteFztJOIdxwwX-PkR17i5GucHJcDtPS8usgvw6TV346H_Arw7gzoMuTJ6siTtOtClY1llVwF-x_5PzjPtUA</recordid><startdate>202002</startdate><enddate>202002</enddate><creator>Chen, Di</creator><creator>Wu, Lianlian</creator><creator>Li, Yanxia</creator><creator>Zhang, Jun</creator><creator>Liu, Jun</creator><creator>Huang, Li</creator><creator>Jiang, Xiaoda</creator><creator>Huang, Xu</creator><creator>Mu, Ganggang</creator><creator>Hu, Shan</creator><creator>Hu, Xiao</creator><creator>Gong, Dexin</creator><creator>He, Xinqi</creator><creator>Yu, Honggang</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202002</creationdate><title>Comparing blind spots of unsedated ultrafine, sedated, and unsedated conventional gastroscopy with and without artificial intelligence: a prospective, single-blind, 3-parallel-group, randomized, single-center trial</title><author>Chen, Di ; Wu, Lianlian ; Li, Yanxia ; Zhang, Jun ; Liu, Jun ; Huang, Li ; Jiang, Xiaoda ; Huang, Xu ; Mu, Ganggang ; Hu, Shan ; Hu, Xiao ; Gong, Dexin ; He, Xinqi ; Yu, Honggang</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-1d3ecb993309f51f4d3df68b8f321760436f8b0511aac89709852c73d56c86113</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Anxiety</topic><topic>Artificial Intelligence</topic><topic>Conscious Sedation - methods</topic><topic>Endoscopy, Digestive System - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gastroscopes</topic><topic>Gastroscopy - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Pain, Procedural</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Single-Blind Method</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chen, Di</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Lianlian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Yanxia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Li</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiang, Xiaoda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Xu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mu, Ganggang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hu, Shan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hu, Xiao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gong, Dexin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>He, Xinqi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Honggang</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Gastrointestinal endoscopy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chen, Di</au><au>Wu, Lianlian</au><au>Li, Yanxia</au><au>Zhang, Jun</au><au>Liu, Jun</au><au>Huang, Li</au><au>Jiang, Xiaoda</au><au>Huang, Xu</au><au>Mu, Ganggang</au><au>Hu, Shan</au><au>Hu, Xiao</au><au>Gong, Dexin</au><au>He, Xinqi</au><au>Yu, Honggang</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing blind spots of unsedated ultrafine, sedated, and unsedated conventional gastroscopy with and without artificial intelligence: a prospective, single-blind, 3-parallel-group, randomized, single-center trial</atitle><jtitle>Gastrointestinal endoscopy</jtitle><addtitle>Gastrointest Endosc</addtitle><date>2020-02</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>91</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>332</spage><epage>339.e3</epage><pages>332-339.e3</pages><issn>0016-5107</issn><eissn>1097-6779</eissn><abstract>EGD is the most vital procedure for the diagnosis of upper GI lesions. We aimed to compare the performance of unsedated ultrathin transoral endoscopy (U-TOE), unsedated conventional EGD (C-EGD), and sedated C-EGD with or without the use of an artificial intelligence (AI) system.
In this prospective, single-blind, 3-parallel-group, randomized, single-center trial, 437 patients scheduled to undergo outpatient EGD were randomized to unsedated U-TOE, unsedated C-EGD, or sedated C-EGD, and each group was then divided into 2 subgroups: with or without the assistance of an AI system to monitor blind spots during EGD. The primary outcome was the blind spot rate of these 3 groups with the assistance of AI. The secondary outcomes were to compare blind spot rates of unsedated U-TOE, unsedated, and sedated C-EGD with or without the assistance of AI, respectively, and the concordance between AI and the endoscopists’ review.
The blind spot rate with AI-assisted sedated C-EGD was significantly lower than that of unsedated U-TOE and unsedated C-EGD (3.42% vs 21.77% vs 31.23%, respectively; P < .05). The blind spot rate of the AI subgroup was lower than that of the control subgroup in all 3 groups (sedated C-EGD: 3.42% vs 22.46%, P < .001; unsedated U-TOE: 21.77% vs 29.92%, P < .001; unsedated C-EGD: 31.23% vs 42.46%, P < .001).
The blind spot rate of sedated C-EGD was the lowest among the 3 types of EGD, and the addition of AI had a maximal effect on sedated C-EGD. (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR1900020920.)
[Display omitted]</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>31541626</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.gie.2019.09.016</doi></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0016-5107 |
| ispartof | Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2020-02, Vol.91 (2), p.332-339.e3 |
| issn | 0016-5107 1097-6779 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2295481879 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
| subjects | Adult Aged Anxiety Artificial Intelligence Conscious Sedation - methods Endoscopy, Digestive System - methods Female Gastroscopes Gastroscopy - methods Humans Image Processing, Computer-Assisted Male Middle Aged Pain, Procedural Prospective Studies Single-Blind Method |
| title | Comparing blind spots of unsedated ultrafine, sedated, and unsedated conventional gastroscopy with and without artificial intelligence: a prospective, single-blind, 3-parallel-group, randomized, single-center trial |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T20%3A15%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparing%20blind%20spots%20of%20unsedated%20ultrafine,%20sedated,%20and%20unsedated%20conventional%20gastroscopy%20with%20and%20without%20artificial%20intelligence:%20a%20prospective,%20single-blind,%203-parallel-group,%20randomized,%20single-center%20trial&rft.jtitle=Gastrointestinal%20endoscopy&rft.au=Chen,%20Di&rft.date=2020-02&rft.volume=91&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=332&rft.epage=339.e3&rft.pages=332-339.e3&rft.issn=0016-5107&rft.eissn=1097-6779&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.gie.2019.09.016&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2295481879%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2295481879&rft_id=info:pmid/31541626&rft_els_id=S0016510719322497&rfr_iscdi=true |