Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35834249›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Development and Validation of an Artificial Intelligence Model for Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy Video Review.

Xia Xie, Yu-Feng Xiao, Xiao-Yan Zhao, Jian-Jun Li, Qiang-Qiang Yang, Xue Peng, Xu-Biao Nie, Jian-Yun Zhou, Yong-Bing Zhao, Huan Yang and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Xia XieDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, the Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Yu-Feng XiaoDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, the Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Xiao-Yan ZhaoDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, the Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Jian-Jun LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, the Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Qiang-Qiang YangDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, the Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Xue PengDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, the Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Xu-Biao NieDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, the Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Jian-Yun ZhouDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, the Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Yong-Bing ZhaoDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, the Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Huan YangDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, the Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Xi LiuDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, the Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
En LiuDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, the Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Yu-Yang ChenDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, the Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Yuan-Yuan ZhouDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, the Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Chao-Qiang FanDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, the Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Jian-Ying BaiDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, the Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Hui LinDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, the Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Anastasios KoulaouzidisDepartment of Public Health, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland.
Shi-Ming YangDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, the Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Army Medical University · CNPomeranian Medical University · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Reading small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) videos is a tedious task for clinicians, and a new method should be applied to solve the situation. Objectives: To develop and evaluate the performance of a convolutional neural network algorithm for SBCE video review in real-life clinical care. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this multicenter, retrospective diagnostic study, a deep learning neural network (SmartScan) was trained and validated for the SBCE video review. A total of 2927 SBCE examinations from 29 medical centers were used to train SmartScan to detect 17 types of CE structured terminology (CEST) findings from January 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020. SmartScan was later validated with conventional reading (CR) and SmartScan-assisted reading (SSAR) in 2898 SBCE examinations collected from 22 medical centers. Data analysis was performed from January 25 to December 31, 2021. Exposure: An artificial intelligence-based tool for interpreting clinical images of SBCE. Main Outcomes and Measures: The detection rate and efficiency of CEST findings detected by SSAR and CR were compared. Results: A total of 5825 SBCE examinations were retrospectively collected; 2898 examinations (1765 male participants [60.9%]; mean [SD] age, 49.8 [15.5] years) were included in the validation phase. From a total of 6084 CEST-classified SB findings, SSAR detected 5834 findings (95.9%; 95% CI, 95.4%-96.4%), significantly higher than CR, which detected 4630 findings (76.1%; 95% CI, 75.0%-77.2%). SmartScan-assisted reading achieved a higher per-patient detection rate (79.3% [2298 of 2898]) for CEST findings compared with CR (70.7% [2048 of 2298]; 95% CI, 69.0%-72.3%). With SSAR, the mean (SD) number of images (per SBCE video) requiring review was reduced to 779.2 (337.2) compared with 27 910.8 (12 882.9) with CR, for a mean (SD) reduction rate of 96.1% (4.3%). The mean (SD) reading time with SSAR was shortened to 5.4 (1.5) minutes compared with CR (51.4 [11.6] minutes), for a mean (SD) reduction rate of 89.3% (3.1%). Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that a convolutional neural network-based algorithm is associated with an increased detection rate of SBCE findings and reduced SBCE video reading time.

Indexed as

Capsule EndoscopyAbdomenArtificial IntelligenceHumansIntestine, SmallMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID35834249
PMCPMC9284338
OpenAlexW4285386404

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.