4.6 Review

Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Endoscopic Diagnosis of Early Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
Volume 12, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.855175

Keywords

artificial intelligence; upper gastrointestinal tract; early detection of cancer; endoscopy; systematic review

Categories

Funding

  1. Key Research and Development Project of Science & Technology Department of Sichuan Province [20ZDYF1129]
  2. Applied Basic Research Project of Science & Technology Department of Luzhou city [2018-JYJ-45]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Based on our meta-analysis, artificial intelligence showed high accuracy in the diagnosis of early upper gastrointestinal cancer (EUGIC).
Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic ability of artificial intelligence (AI) in the detection of early upper gastrointestinal cancer (EUGIC) using endoscopic images. Methods: Databases were searched for studies on AI-assisted diagnosis of EUGIC using endoscopic images. The pooled area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Results: Overall, 34 studies were included in our final analysis. Among the 17 image-based studies investigating early esophageal cancer (EEC) detection, the pooled AUC, sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were 0.98, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.95-0.96), 0.95 (95% CI, 0.94-0.95), 10.76 (95% CI, 7.33-15.79), 0.07 (95% CI, 0.04-0.11), and 173.93 (95% CI, 81.79-369.83), respectively. Among the seven patient-based studies investigating EEC detection, the pooled AUC, sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were 0.98, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.96), 0.90 (95% CI, 0.88-0.92), 6.14 (95% CI, 2.06-18.30), 0.07 (95% CI, 0.04-0.11), and 69.13 (95% CI, 14.73-324.45), respectively. Among the 15 image-based studies investigating early gastric cancer (EGC) detection, the pooled AUC, sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were 0.94, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.87-0.88), 0.88 (95% CI, 0.87-0.88), 7.20 (95% CI, 4.32-12.00), 0.14 (95% CI, 0.09-0.23), and 48.77 (95% CI, 24.98-95.19), respectively. Conclusions: On the basis of our meta-analysis, AI exhibited high accuracy in diagnosis of EUGIC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available