| Literature DB >> 30364792 |
Muthuraman Alagappan1, Jeremy R Glissen Brown1, Yuichi Mori2, Tyler M Berzin3.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) enables machines to provide unparalleled value in a myriad of industries and applications. In recent years, researchers have harnessed artificial intelligence to analyze large-volume, unstructured medical data and perform clinical tasks, such as the identification of diabetic retinopathy or the diagnosis of cutaneous malignancies. Applications of artificial intelligence techniques, specifically machine learning and more recently deep learning, are beginning to emerge in gastrointestinal endoscopy. The most promising of these efforts have been in computer-aided detection and computer-aided diagnosis of colorectal polyps, with recent systems demonstrating high sensitivity and accuracy even when compared to expert human endoscopists. AI has also been utilized to identify gastrointestinal bleeding, to detect areas of inflammation, and even to diagnose certain gastrointestinal infections. Future work in the field should concentrate on creating seamless integration of AI systems with current endoscopy platforms and electronic medical records, developing training modules to teach clinicians how to use AI tools, and determining the best means for regulation and approval of new AI technology.Entities:
Keywords: Artificial intelligence; Colonic polyps; Colonoscopy; Colorectal adenocarcinoma; Computer-aided detection; Computer-aided diagnosis; Computer-assisted decision making; Gastrointestinal endoscopy; Machine learning
Year: 2018 PMID: 30364792 PMCID: PMC6198310 DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v10.i10.239
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Gastrointest Endosc
Figure 1Automatic polyp detection by Wang et al[40]. A: Original image obtained during colonoscopy; B: Automatic detection by box method; C: Probability map whereby red indicates high probability of polyp and blue indicates low probability of polyp; D: Automatic detection by paint method whereby blue coloring indicates location of polyp.
Figure 2Output from artifical intelligence-assisted endocytoscopy system by Misawa et al[57]. A: Input from endocytoscopy with narrow band imaging; B: Extracted vessel image whereby green light represents extracted vessel image; C: System outputs diagnosis of neoplastic or non-neoplastic; D: Probability of diagnosis calculated by support vector machine classifier. NBI: narrow band imaging.
Summary of clinical studies involving computer-aided detection and computer-aided diagnosis in real time (during live colonoscopy or video recording)
| Wang et al[ | 2015 | CADe | White-Light Endoscopy | Polyp-Edge Detection Algorithm and Shot Extraction | Retrospective | - | - | 97.7% | 0.02 s | 36 false-positives per video |
| Fernández-Esparrach et al[ | 2016 | CADe | White-Light Endoscopy | WM-DOVA | Retrospective | 70.4% | 72.4% | - | - | Accuracy and latency reported for this study |
| Tajbakhsh et al[ | 2016 | CADe | White-Light Endoscopy | Hybrid Context-Shape Extractor, Edge Mapping | Retrospective | 88.0% | - | - | 0.3 s | 0.1 False positives per frame |
| 48.0% for ASU-Mayo | ||||||||||
| Wang et al[ | 2017 | CADe | White-Light Endoscopy | Deep learning, built on SegNet Architecture | Retrospective | 91.6% | 96.3% | 100.0% | 0.04 s | |
| Misawa et al[ | 2018 | CADe | White-Light Endoscopy | Deep learning, built on a DCNN | Retrospective | 90.0% | 63.3% | 76.5% | - | |
| Kominami et al[ | 2016 | CADx | Magnifying NBI | Bag of features representation, SVM output | Prospective | 93.0% | 93.3% | 93.2% | - | 97.5% concordance between automatic diagnosis and endoscopic diagnosis |
| Komeda et al[ | 2017 | CADx | A mix of White-Light Endoscopy, NBI and Chromoendoscopy | Deep learning, built on a CNN | Retrospective | - | - | 75.1% | ||
| Byrne et al[ | 2017 | CADx | White-Light Endoscopy and NBI | Deep learning, built on a DCNN | Retrospective | 98.0% | 83.0% | 94.0% | 0.05 s | For 19 polyps the system was unable to reach a credibility score threshold of ≥ 50% |
| Mori et al[ | 2017 | CADx | Endocytoscopy and NBI | Texture analysis, automatic vessel extraction, SVM output | Prospective | 97.0% | 67.0% | 83.0% |
Tracking accuracy or detection rate, defined as number of polyps detected by software/total number of polyps present in videos;
Sensitivity and specificity for the detection of polyps;
Sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of neoplastic versus non-neoplastic lesions;
Accuracy defined as differentiation of adenomas from non-neoplastic lesions;
Accuracy of a 10-hold cross-validation is 0.751, where the accuracy is the ratio of the number of correct answers over the number of all the answers produced by the CNN;
Sensitivity and specificity in this case are calculated based on histology of 106/125 polyps in the video test set. For the remaining 19 polyps the system was unable to reach a credibility score threshold of ≥ 50%; CADx: Computer-aided diagnosis; CADe: Computer-aided detection; SVM: Support vector machine; WM-DOVA: Window median depth of valleys accumulation; NBI: Narrow band imaging; CNN: Convolution neural network; DCNN: Deep convolution neural network.
Figure 3Automatic polyp classification system. 1: Input from narrow band imaging; 2: Computer diagnosis of NICE type 1 (hyperplastic) vs NICE type 2 (adenomatous); 3: Probability of diagnosis; 4: Computer determined confidence in diagnosis probability. Obtained with permission from Dr. Michael Byrne (Division of Gastroenterology at Vancouver General Hospital and UBC).