Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35087903›Full record

ArticleVisceral medicine2021

Confocal Laser Microscopy for in vivo Intraoperative Application: Diagnostic Accuracy of Investigator and Machine Learning Strategies.

David Benjamin Ellebrecht, Nicole Heßler, Alexander Schlaefer, Nils Gessert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Visceral medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

David Benjamin EllebrechtDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, LungenClinic Großhansdorf, Großhansdorf, Germany.
Nicole HeßlerInstitute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, University of Lübeck, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Alexander SchlaeferInstitute of Medical Technology and Intelligent Systems, Hamburg University of Technology, Hamburg, Germany.
Nils GessertInstitute of Medical Technology and Intelligent Systems, Hamburg University of Technology, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConfocal laser microscopy (CLM) is one of the optical techniques that are promising methods of intraoperative in vivo real-time tissue examination based on tissue fluorescence. However, surgeons might struggle interpreting CLM images intraoperatively due to different tissue characteristics of different tissue pathologies in clinical reality. Deep learning techniques enable fast and consistent image analysis and might support intraoperative image interpretation. The objective of this study was to analyze the diagnostic accuracy of newly trained observers in the evaluation of normal colon and peritoneal tissue and colon cancer and metastasis, respectively, and to compare it with that of convolutional neural networks (CNNs).

methodsTwo hundred representative CLM images of the normal and malignant colon and peritoneal tissue were evaluated by newly trained observers (surgeons and pathologists) and CNNs (VGG-16 and Densenet121), respectively, based on tissue dignity. The primary endpoint was the correct detection of the normal and cancer/metastasis tissue measured by sensitivity and specificity of both groups. Additionally, positive predictive values (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs) were calculated for the newly trained observer group. The interobserver variability of dignity evaluation was calculated using kappa statistic. The F1-score and area under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate the performance of image recognition of the CNNs' training scenarios.

resultsSensitivity and specificity ranged between 0.55 and 1.0 (pathologists: 0.66-0.97; surgeons: 0.55-1.0) and between 0.65 and 0.96 (pathologists: 0.68-0.93; surgeons: 0.65-0.96), respectively. PPVs were 0.75 and 0.90 in the pathologists' group and 0.73-0.96 in the surgeons' group, respectively. NPVs were 0.73 and 0.96 for pathologists' and between 0.66 and 1.00 for surgeons' tissue analysis. The overall interobserver variability was 0.54. Depending on the training scenario, cancer/metastasis tissue was classified with an AUC of 0.77-0.88 by VGG-16 and 0.85-0.89 by Densenet121. Transfer learning improved performance over training from scratch.

conclusionsNewly trained investigators are able to learn CLM images features and interpretation rapidly, regardless of their clinical experience. Heterogeneity in tissue diagnosis and a moderate interobserver variability reflect the clinical reality more realistic. CNNs provide comparable diagnostic results as clinical observers and could improve surgeons' intraoperative tissue assessment.

Indexed as

Colon cancerConfocal laser microscopyConvolutional neural networksDeep learningMachine learning strategiesMedical engineeringMinimal invasive surgery

Identifiers

PMID35087903
PMCPMC8740144

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.