ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2011
Artificial intelligence techniques applied to the development of a decision-support system for diagnosing celiac disease.
Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence for detecting gastrointestinal luminal pathologies: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Current Evidence on Computer-Aided Diagnosis of Celiac Disease: Systematic Review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Pooled it
- Serious Game Aimed at Assessing Executive Planning Skills in Children With Autism: Cross-Sectional Design and Formative Evaluation of ShopAutiPlan.JMIR serious games · 2026Article
- Diagnostic and Screening AI Tools in Brazil's Resource-Limited Settings: Systematic Review.JMIR AI · 2025Review
- Capsule endoscopy: Do we still need it after 24 years of clinical use?World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Advancing healthcare: the role and impact of AI and foundation models.American journal of translational research · 2024Review
- Development and evaluation of a clinical decision support system for early diagnosis of acute appendicitis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Perspectives of Patients With Chronic Diseases on Future Acceptance of AI-Based Home Care Systems: Cross-Sectional Web-Based Survey Study.JMIR human factors · 2023Article
- Studying Pregnancy Outcome Risk in Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Based on Cluster Analysis.BioMed research international · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence (AI) acceptance in primary care during the coronavirus pandemic: What is the role of patients' gender, age and health awareness? A two-phase pilot study.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.Gastro hep advances · 2022Review
- Natural language processing and machine learning to assist radiation oncology incident learning.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
- Artificial intelligence in gastroenterology: A state-of-the-art review.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Neural networks and hospital length of stay: an application to support healthcare management with national benchmarks and thresholds.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2021Article
- Challenges and opportunities in the application of artificial intelligence in gastroenterology and hepatology.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Artificial intelligence in small intestinal diseases: Application and prospects.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Review
- XML Data and Knowledge-Encoding Structure for a Web-Based and Mobile Antenatal Clinical Decision Support System: Development Study.JMIR formative research · 2020Article
- The Future of Capsule Endoscopy: The Role of Artificial Intelligence and Other Technical Advancements.Clinical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Pilot evaluation of sensitive data segmentation technology for privacy.International journal of medical informatics · 2020Article
- A systematic review of the applications of artificial intelligence and machine learning in autoimmune diseases.NPJ digital medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCeliac disease (CD) is a difficult-to-diagnose condition because of its multiple clinical presentations and symptoms shared with other diseases. Gold-standard diagnostic confirmation of suspected CD is achieved by biopsying the small intestine.
objectiveTo develop a clinical decision-support system (CDSS) integrated with an automated classifier to recognize CD cases, by selecting from experimental models developed using intelligence artificial techniques.
methodsA web-based system was designed for constructing a retrospective database that included 178 clinical cases for training. Tests were run on 270 automated classifiers available in Weka 3.6.1 using five artificial intelligence techniques, namely decision trees, Bayesian inference, k-nearest neighbor algorithm, support vector machines and artificial neural networks. The parameters evaluated were accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and area under the ROC curve (AUC). AUC was used as a criterion for selecting the CDSS algorithm. A testing database was constructed including 38 clinical CD cases for CDSS evaluation. The diagnoses suggested by CDSS were compared with those made by physicians during patient consultations.
resultsThe most accurate method during the training phase was the averaged one-dependence estimator (AODE) algorithm (a Bayesian classifier), which showed accuracy 80.0%, sensitivity 0.78, specificity 0.80 and AUC 0.84. This classifier was integrated into the web-based decision-support system. The gold-standard validation of CDSS achieved accuracy of 84.2% and k=0.68 (p<0.0001) with good agreement. The same accuracy was achieved in the comparison between the physician's diagnostic impression and the gold standard k=0. 64 (p<0.0001). There was moderate agreement between the physician's diagnostic impression and CDSS k=0.46 (p=0.0008).
conclusionsThe study results suggest that CDSS could be used to help in diagnosing CD, since the algorithm tested achieved excellent accuracy in differentiating possible positive from negative CD diagnoses. This study may contribute towards developing of a computer-assisted environment to support CD diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.