Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40116287›Full record

ArticleUnited European gastroenterology journal2025

Challenges in Implementing Endoscopic Artificial Intelligence: The Impact of Real-World Imaging Conditions on Barrett's Neoplasia Detection.

M R Jong, T J M Jaspers, C H J Kusters, J B Jukema, R A H van Eijck van Heslinga, K N Fockens, T G W Boers, L S Visser, J A van der Putten, F van der Sommen and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in United European gastroenterology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

14 authors.

M R JongDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam Gastroenterology, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
T J M JaspersDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
C H J KustersDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
J B JukemaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam Gastroenterology, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
R A H van Eijck van HeslingaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam Gastroenterology, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
K N FockensDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam Gastroenterology, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
T G W BoersDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
L S VisserDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam Gastroenterology, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J A van der PuttenDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
F van der SommenDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3593-2356
P H de WithDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
A J de GroofDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam Gastroenterology, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2334-0043
J J BergmanDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam Gastroenterology, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7548-6955
BONS‐AI consortium

Funding

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek 19091
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndoscopic deep learning systems are often developed using high-quality imagery obtained from expert centers. Therefore, they may underperform in community hospitals where image quality is more heterogeneous.

objectiveThis study aimed to quantify the performance degradation of a computer aided detection system for Barrett's neoplasia, trained on expert images, when exposed to more heterogeneous imaging conditions representative of daily clinical practice. Further, we evaluated strategies to mitigate this performance loss.

methodsWe developed a computer aided detection system using 1011 high-quality, expert-acquired images from 373 Barrett's patients. We assessed its performance on high, moderate and low image quality test sets, each containing images from an independent group of 117 Barrett's patients. These test sets reflected the varied image quality of routine patient care and contained artefacts such as insufficient mucosal cleaning and inadequate esophageal expansion. We then applied three methods to improve the algorithm's robustness to data heterogeneity: inclusion of more diverse training data, domain-specific pretraining and architectural optimization.

resultsThe computer aided detection system, when trained exclusively on high-quality data, achieved area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity scores of 83%, 85% and 67% on the high quality test set. AUC and sensitivity were significantly lower with 80% (p < 0.001) and 62% (p = 0.002) on the moderate-quality and 71% (p > 0.001) and 47% (p = 0.002) on the low-quality test set. Incorporating robustness-enhancing strategies significantly improved the AUC, sensitivity and specificity to 92% (p = 0.004), 88% (p = 0.84) and 81% (p = 0.003) on the high-quality test set, 93% (p = 0.006), 86% (p = 0.01) and 83% (p = 0.09) on the moderate-quality test set and 84% (p = 0.001), 78% (p = 0.002) and 77% (p = 0.23) on the low-quality test set.

conclusionEndoscopic deep learning systems trained solely on high-quality images may not perform well when exposed to heterogeneous imagery, as found in routine practice. Robustness-enhancing training strategies can increase the likelihood of successful clinical implementation.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBarrett EsophagusDeep LearningDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagoscopyImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedAgedAlgorithmsEsophagusFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSensitivity and Specificityartificial intelligenceBarrett's esophaguscomputer aided detectiondeep learning systemsendoscopyesophageal adenocarcinoma

Identifiers

PMID40116287
PMCPMC12269737

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.