Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35576561›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2022

The Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence in the Endoscopic Diagnosis of Early Gastric Cancer: Pooled Analysis Study.

Pei-Chin Chen, Yun-Ru Lu, Yi-No Kang, Chun-Chao Chang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Shedding a new light on gastric cancer screening.United European gastroenterology journal · 2024
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. The Role of Neural Network Analysis in Identifying Predictors of Gastric Cancer.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2024
    Article
  18. Review
  19. 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.

Pei-Chin Chen *Department of Internal Medicine, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0003-4496-6643
Yun-Ru Lu *Department of General Medicine, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0003-0063-4292
Yi-No Kang *Evidence-Based Medicine Center, Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0001-8244-2846
Chun-Chao ChangDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-3396-1559

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) for gastric cancer diagnosis has been discussed in recent years. The role of AI in early gastric cancer is more important than in advanced gastric cancer since early gastric cancer is not easily identified in clinical practice. However, to our knowledge, past syntheses appear to have limited focus on the populations with early gastric cancer.

objectiveThe purpose of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of AI in the diagnosis of early gastric cancer from endoscopic images.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review from database inception to June 2020 of all studies assessing the performance of AI in the endoscopic diagnosis of early gastric cancer. Studies not concerning early gastric cancer were excluded. The outcome of interest was the diagnostic accuracy (comprising sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy) of AI systems. Study quality was assessed on the basis of the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. Meta-analysis was primarily based on a bivariate mixed-effects model. A summary receiver operating curve and a hierarchical summary receiver operating curve were constructed, and the area under the curve was computed.

resultsWe analyzed 12 retrospective case control studies (n=11,685) in which AI identified early gastric cancer from endoscopic images. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of AI for early gastric cancer diagnosis were 0.86 (95% CI 0.75-0.92) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.84-0.93), respectively. The area under the curve was 0.94. Sensitivity analysis of studies using support vector machines and narrow-band imaging demonstrated more consistent results.

conclusionsFor early gastric cancer, to our knowledge, this was the first synthesis study on the use of endoscopic images in AI in diagnosis. AI may support the diagnosis of early gastric cancer. However, the collocation of imaging techniques and optimal algorithms remain unclear. Competing models of AI for the diagnosis of early gastric cancer are worthy of future investigation.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020193223; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=193223.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceStomach NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerHumansNarrow Band ImagingRetrospective Studiesartificial intelligenceearly gastric cancerendoscopy

Identifiers

PMID35576561
PMCPMC9152716

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.