3.8 Article

Development and validation of an automated algorithm to evaluate the abundance of bubbles in small bowel capsule endoscopy

Journal

ENDOSCOPY INTERNATIONAL OPEN
Volume 6, Issue 4, Pages E462-E469

Publisher

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/a-0573-1044

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and study aims Bubbles can impair visualization of the small bowel (SB) mucosa during capsule endoscopy (CE). We aimed to develop and validate a computed algorithm that would allow evaluation of the abundance of bubbles in SB-CE still frames. Patients and methods Two sets of 200 SB-CE normal still frames were created. Two experienced SB-CE readers analyzed both sets of images twice, in a random order. Each still frame was categorized as presenting with < 10% or >= 10% of bubbles. Reproducibility (kappa), sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), receiver operating characteristic curve, and calculation time were measured for different algorithms (Grey-level of co-occurrence matrix [GLCM], fractal dimension, Hough transform, and speeded-up robust features [SURF]) using the experts' analysis as reference. Algorithms with highest reproducibility, Se and Sp were then selected for a validation step on the second set of frames. Criteria for validation were kappa= 1, Se >= 90 %, Sp >= 85 %, and a calculation time < 1 second. Results Both SURF and GLCM algorithms had high operating points (Se and Sp over 90%) and a perfect reproducibility (kappa = 1). The validation step showed the GLCM detector strategy had the best diagnostic performances, with a Se of 95.79%, a Sp of 95.19%, and a calculation time of 0.037 seconds per frame. Conclusion A computed algorithm based on a GLCM detector strategy had high diagnostic performance allowing assessment of the abundance of bubbles in SB-CE still frames. This algorithm could be of interest for clinical use (quality reporting) and for research purposes (objective comparison tool of different preparations).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available