ArticleiGIE : innovation, investigation and insights2024
Esophageal varices detection and bleeding risk assessment with artificial intelligence: a systematic review.
Article in iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- World Endoscopy Organization Position Statements for Artificial Intelligence in Endoscopic Diagnosis of Gastric Epithelial Neoplasia.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Esophageal varices (EVs) result from portal hypertension in decompensated liver disease secondary to liver cirrhosis. Diagnosis and grading is done using EGD and mucosal examination. However, interobserver differences may occur when analyzing EGD results. Recent application of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms yielded mixed results for varices detection and bleeding risk estimation. The capabilities of AI in the detection and grading of EVs need to be evaluated. Methods: A systematic review was conducted with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE were searched from January 1956 to July 2023. Data were manually identified and extracted by reviewers, assessing outcomes of AI tools used, EV detection accuracies, and bleeding risk prediction accuracies. Average accuracies were derived from result sections or manual calculations. Results: Sixteen studies with 26,170 patients and 19 AI systems and algorithms were included after a review of 1670 studies. The most common AI systems were artificial neural network and random forest. The categorical boosting machine learning (ML) algorithm was most accurate for prediction of bleeding (100%), whereas the radiomic model ML tool was the least accurate for EV detection (49%). Overall, AI had an average EV detection accuracy of 78.67% and variceal bleed accuracy of 83.2%. Conclusions: AI could provide an accessible interface for EV prediction and estimation of bleeding risk. Limitations include the dependence on a single dataset for efficacy, assessment with specific AI tools, and potential overinterpretation of broad geographic variances. Newer algorithms should have larger datasets with reproducible validity to strengthen the predictive value in clinical practice.
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.