This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Reviews in Medical Informatics (93) Advanced Data Analytics in eHealth (142) Imaging Informatics (200) Machine Learning (1501) Computer-Aided Diagnosis (135) Development and Evaluation of Research Methods, Instruments and Tools (511) Artificial Intelligence (1421) Clinical Information and Decision Making (1434)

Published on in Vol 12 (2024)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/56361, first published .
Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence in Endoscopy: Umbrella Review

Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence in Endoscopy: Umbrella Review

Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence in Endoscopy: Umbrella Review

Authors of this article:

Bowen Zha1 Author Orcid Image ;   Angshu Cai1 Author Orcid Image ;   Guiqi Wang1 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations Metrics

    Department of Endoscopy, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China

    *these authors contributed equally

    Corresponding Author:

    Guiqi Wang, MD, PhD


    Background: Some research has already reported the diagnostic value of artificial intelligence (AI) in different endoscopy outcomes. However, the evidence is confusing and of varying quality.

    Objective: This review aimed to comprehensively evaluate the credibility of the evidence of AI’s diagnostic accuracy in endoscopy.

    Methods: Before the study began, the protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023483073). First, 2 researchers searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library using comprehensive search terms. Then, researchers screened the articles and extracted information. We used A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) to evaluate the quality of the articles. When there were multiple studies aiming at the same result, we chose the study with higher-quality evaluations for further analysis. To ensure the reliability of the conclusions, we recalculated each outcome. Finally, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the credibility of the outcomes.

    Results: A total of 21 studies were included for analysis. Through AMSTAR2, it was found that 8 research methodologies were of moderate quality, while other studies were regarded as having low or critically low quality. The sensitivity and specificity of 17 different outcomes were analyzed. There were 4 studies on esophagus, 4 studies on stomach, and 4 studies on colorectal regions. Two studies were associated with capsule endoscopy, two were related to laryngoscopy, and one was related to ultrasonic endoscopy. In terms of sensitivity, gastroesophageal reflux disease had the highest accuracy rate, reaching 97%, while the invasion depth of colon neoplasia, with 71%, had the lowest accuracy rate. On the other hand, the specificity of colorectal cancer was the highest, reaching 98%, while the gastrointestinal stromal tumor, with only 80%, had the lowest specificity. The GRADE evaluation suggested that the reliability of most outcomes was low or very low.

    Conclusions: AI proved valuabe in endoscopic diagnoses, especially in esophageal and colorectal diseases. These findings provide a theoretical basis for developing and evaluating AI-assisted systems, which are aimed at assisting endoscopists in carrying out examinations, leading to improved patient health outcomes. However, further high-quality research is needed in the future to fully validate AI’s effectiveness.

    JMIR Med Inform 2024;12:e56361

    doi:10.2196/56361

    Keywords

    endoscopy; artificial intelligence; umbrella review; meta-analyses; AI; diagnostic; researchers; researcher; tools; tool; assessment 


    Gastrointestinal diseases impose a serious burden on health care systems worldwide. The data show that gastrointestinal diseases cause millions of deaths worldwide every year [1]. Endoscopy, as an efficient and convenient method, can effectively diagnose various gastrointestinal diseases [2]. Endoscopic intervention can also effectively treat early gastrointestinal cancers [3].

    In recent years, with the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), numerous studies have been conducted to explore its application in the field of endoscopy, aiming to assist medical professionals in lesion identification and endoscopy quality control [4,5].

    At present, some meta-analyses have reported the diagnostic value of AI in endoscopy [6-9]. Although AI has high sensitivity and specificity in identifying lesions in some studies, due to merger heterogeneity and sample size variations, the reliability of merger analysis outcomes needs further discussion [10-12].

    In this study, an umbrella review methodology was used to elucidate current research directions and identify potential future research ideas by evaluating existing meta-analyses on AI in endoscopy. The meta-analyses of current studies were screened and extracted, and the quality of outcomes was assessed.


    Registration

    The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023483073) before the study began. PROSPERO is an open access database of systematic reviews. Registration before the start of the study effectively reduced selective reporting [13,14]. This umbrella review followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The details can be seen in Checklist 1.

    Search Strategy

    Two researchers searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library with a comprehensive search strategy up to November 2023. In addition, we searched “Google Scholar” to identify gray literature and searched for references of eligible articles. Two researchers independently screened the titles and abstracts and reviewed the full texts to identify eligible studies. Any discrepancies were resolved through consultation with a third researcher until a consensus was reached. The search strategy details are available in Table S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1.

    Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

    The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) studies evaluating the diagnostic value of AI in endoscopy; (2) studies that provided at least one outcome data—sensitivity or specificity; (3) articles that had meta-analyses and were conducted by systematic methods; and (4) articles published in English.

    We excluded studies that met the following criteria: (1) experiments not on humans, (2) unavailable full text, (3) duplicate studies, and (4) studies lacking critical information.

    Data Extraction

    Two researchers independently extracted data. The third researcher would extract data if there were any discrepancies. The following basic information was included: the first author, year of publication, country, kind of endoscopy, detection, followed guidelines, registered number, number of included studies in the meta-analyses, outcomes, included study types in the meta-analyses, and tools for assessing the risk of the Bias. Then, we collected outcome information, including sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the curve. We searched for missed information in primary studies if necessary.

    Evaluation of Article Quality

    Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of the articles using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2). AMSTAR is a tool for evaluating the systematic reviews of randomized trials [15,16]. In 2015, researchers introduced AMSTAR2, which expanded the application scope of AMSTAR to include the evaluation of systematic reviews of nonrandomized trials [17]. AMSTAR2 consists of a 16-item questionnaire prompting reviewers to respond with “yes,” “partly yes,” or “no” to each item. We viewed 2 “partly yes” answers as 1 “yes.” In total, 7 items were considered important. If all the items were in conformity or only 1 unimportant item was out of conformity, the study was evaluated as having high quality. If more than 1 unimportant item did not fit, the study was rated as having moderate quality. If 1 important item did not conform, the study was rated as having low quality; the study was regarded as having critically low quality if more than 1 important item did not conform.

    Data Analysis

    We collected the outcome indicators of applying AI technology in different scenarios. This study evaluated the application of AI diagnostic techniques in different endoscopes. Considering that there are several studies analyzing the same issues, if there were multiple meta-analyses, we selected high-quality studies according to the AMSTAR2 criteria. If the quality of different studies was consistent, we chose the latest published study among them. After that, the most recent meta-analysis was collected and performed again to ensure that the most recent results were obtained. To make the results more reliable, we chose a more conservative method. Moreover, we used the random effect model to ensure the reliability of the result.

    We calculated the effect quantity and 95% CI of each meta-analysis. In each meta-analysis, the P value of the Cochran Q test and the I2 metric were used to evaluate the heterogeneity caused by the threshold effect. The Deek test was used to test publication bias. We used forest figures to show the diagnostic value of AI in endoscopy. We also used the bar accumulation charts to show the conformity of the included articles. In this study, we used R (version 4.3.2; R Foundation for Statistical Computing) for calculation. If the P value was more than .05, we considered that there was no statistically significant difference.

    Grading of the Evidence

    Using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) principle, 2 reviewers evaluated the credibility of evidence independently. GRADE proposes 5 factors for downgrading certainty in the evidence (the risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias) and 2 factors for upgrading certainty in the evidence (large effect and dose-response). These factors were used to evaluate outcomes as being of high, moderate, low, or very low quality. The body of evidence for diagnostic test accuracy studies begins with high quality. There was no guidance on the up factors in the diagnostic test accuracy study; we only downgraded the evidence using the 5 downgrading factors. For the comparative study, we defined its initial reliability according to the results of AMSTAR2 and then adjusted it according to the above factors.


    Study Selection

    We initially identified 3230 studies through the database and 208 studies through manual retrieval. After eliminating duplicates, we had 3013 studies. Then, the researchers eliminated 2897 studies that did not meet the criteria based on their titles and abstracts. After reading the full text of 116 studies, 80 irrelevant studies and 15 studies without meta-analyses were excluded, and finally, 21 studies were included for statistical analysis and evaluation. These included 10 studies pertaining to upper gastrointestinal endoscopy[9,18-26], 5 studies focusing on colonoscopy [27-31], and 4 studies on capsule endoscopy [32-35]. Additionally, there was 1 study about endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and 1 study about laryngoscopy [36,37]. Detail can be seen in Figure 1.

    ‎
    Figure 1. Search strategy and study screening.

    Included Study Characteristics

    A total of 10 studies reported the diagnostic value of AI technoloyg in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. These studies encompassed various original research papers, ranging from 7 to 39 studies per investigation. These studies analyzed the diagnostic value of AI in various diseases, including esophageal and gastric neoplasia, Barrett esophagus, and Helicobacter pylori infection. In terms of research strategies, 9 research reports followed PRISMA guidelines, and 5 studies were registered on PROSPERO. With regard to evaluating bias, 8 studies used Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2), 1 study used QUADAS, and 1 study was not evaluated. QUADAS evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of the research system, including patient selection, index test, reference standard, flow, and timing. In 2011, researchers developed QUADAS-2 for better evaluation [38]. All studies were included in observational studies for diagnostic evaluation.

    A total of 5 research studies on the diagnostic value of AI in colonoscopy were included. Among them, 1 study focused on ulcerative colitis, one focused on colon polyps and tumors, one used Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) to evaluate bias, 3 used QUADRAS-2, and one was not evaluated.

    Of the remaining 6 included studies, 4 studies reported the value of AI in capsule endoscopy for diagnosing bleeding and ulcers; 2 studies reported AI’s diagnostic value of laryngoscopes in examining normal or diseased throat structures and in EUS for diagnosing gastrointestinal stromal tumors separately; 5 studies were conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines; and 3 studies were registered in advance. All 6 studies were included in the observational study, and 5 of them used QUADRAS-2. The details can be seen in Table 1 and Table S2 in Multimedia Appendix 1.

    Table 1. Basic information of included studies.
    StudyYearCountryKind of endoscopyAimIncluded studies, nFollowed guidelines
    Tan et al [24]2022AustraliaUpper endoscopyDetection of Barrett esophagus12PRISMAa
    Ma et al [22]2022ChinaUpper endoscopyDetection of esophagus cancer7PRISMA
    Bang et al [32]2020KoreaUpper endoscopyDetection of Helicobacter pylori infection8PRISMA
    Shi et al [23]2022ChinaUpper endoscopyDetection of chronic atrophic gastritis8PRISMA
    Guidozzi et al [20]2023South AfricaUpper endoscopyDetection of Barrett esophagus and cancer14PRISMA
    Jahagirdar et al [29]2023AmericaColonoscopyDetection of ulcerative colitis12PRISMA
    Keshtkar et al [30]2023IranColonoscopyDetection of colorectal polyp and cancer24NRb
    Bang et al [32]2022KoreaWireless capsule EndoscopyDetection of ulcers, polyps, celiac disease, bleeding, and hookworm39PRISMA
    Soffer et al [35]2020IsraelWireless capsule EndoscopyDetection of ulcers, polyps, celiac disease, bleeding, and hookworm19PRISMA
    Gomes et al [36]2023AmericaEndoscopic ultrasonographyDetection of gastrointestinal stromal tumor8PRISMA
    Zurek et al [37]2022PolandLaryngeal endoscopyDetection of lesions in the larynx11PRISMA
    Bai et al [27]2023ChinaColonoscopyPrediction of invasion depth of colorectal cancer or neoplasms10PRISMA
    Qin et al [34]2021ChinaWireless capsule endoscopyDetection of erosion/ulcer, gastrointestinal bleeding, and polyps/cancer16PRISMA
    Mohan et al [33]2021AmericaWireless capsule endoscopyDetection of gastrointestinal ulcers9NR
    Bang et al [28]2021KoreaColonoscopyDetection of diminutive colorectal polyps13PRISMA
    Lui et al [31]2020ChinaColonoscopyDetection of colorectal polyp and cancer18PRISMA
    Lui et al [21]2020ChinaUpper endoscopyDetection of gastric and esophageal neoplastic lesions and Helicobacter pylori23PRISMA
    Visaggi et al [9]2021ItalyUpper endoscopyDetection of Barrett neoplasia19NR
    Zhang et al [26]2021ChinaUpper endoscopyDetection of esophageal cancer and neoplasm16PRISMA
    Xie et al [25]2022ChinaUpper endoscopyDetection of gastric cancer and prediction invasion depth17PRISMA
    Chen et al [19]2022ChinaUpper endoscopyDetection of early gastric cancer12PRISMA

    aPRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses.

    bNR: not reported.

    Methodological Quality of Included Studies

    In all the included studies, methodological quality ranged from very low to moderate. Results show that the methodology was rated as moderate for 6 studies, low for 2 studies, and very critically low for the remaining 13 studies. Among the articles about upper endoscopy, it was found that 5 studies exhibited a moderate level of methodological quality. In comparison, 2 studies were deemed to have low quality, and 3 studies had were very low quality. The critical problems were the need for advanced registration and an incomplete retrieval strategy. The noncritical problem was that the original literature funding had not been reported. Besides, studies of moderate methodological quality were conducted on both the stomach and esophagus of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Three studies on colonoscopy were of moderate quality, 2 were of low quality, and the remaining 8 were of very low quality. The main problems were the meta-merging method and the evaluation of publication bias.

    Regarding the application of AI in capsule endoscopy, 1 study was of moderate quality, and the other 3 had critically low quality. In addition, the research on applying EUS to identify gastrointestinal stromal tumors and laryngoscope to identify normal and pathological structures of the throat had critically low quality. The details can be seen in Table S3 and Table S4 in Multimedia Appendix 1.

    Meta-Analyses

    There were 4 outcomes for the esophagus. The sensitivity was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.93) for esophageal neoplasia, 0.95 (95% CI 0.91-0.98) for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, 0.94 (95% CI 0.67-0.99) for abnormal intrapapillary loops, and 0.97 (95% CI 0.67-1.00) for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Their specificity was 0.86 (95% CI 0.83-0.93) for esophageal neoplasia, 0.92 (95% CI 0.82-0.97) for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, 0.94 (95% CI 0.84-0.98) for abnormal intrapapillary loops, and 0.97 (95% CI 0.75-1.00) for gastroesophageal reflux disease. The sensitivity of gastric cancer and chronic atrophic gastritis was 0.89 (95% CI 0.85-0.93) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.88-0.97), respectively. At the same time, their specificity was 0.93 (95% CI 0.88-0.97) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.88-0.98), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of judging the invasion depth of gastric cancer were 0.82 (95% CI 0.78-0.85) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.82-0.95), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of Helicobacter pylori infection were 0.87 (95% CI 0.72-0.94) and 0.86 (95% CI 0.72-0.96).

    In colonoscopy, the sensitivity and specificity of colon polyps were 0.93 (95% CI 0.91-0.95) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.76-0.93), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of colon neoplasia were 0.94 (95% CI 0.85-0.98) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.94-0.99), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of ulcerative colitis were 0.83 (95% CI 0.78-0.87) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.89-0.95), respectively. For invasion depth of colon neoplasia, the sensitivity and specificity were 0.71 (95% CI 0.58-0.81) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.91-0.97), respectively.

    For wireless capsule endoscopy, we got 2 results. The sensitivity and specificity of the diagnosis of gastrointestinal ulcer were 0.93 (95% CI 0.89-0.95) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.89-0.95), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the diagnosis of gastrointestinal bleeding were 0.96 (95% CI 0.94-0.97) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.95-0.99), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of EUS in diagnosing gastrointestinal stromal tumors were 0.92 (95 % CI 0.89-0.95) and 0.80 (95 % CI 0.75-0.85), respectively. The sensitivity of healthy and diseased tissues in AI-identified laryngoscope was 0.91 (95 % CI 0.83-0.98) and 0.91 (95 % CI 0.86-0.96), respectively, and the specificity was 0.97 (95 % CI 0.96-0.99) and 0.95 (95 % CI 0.90-0.99), respectively. The details can be seen in Figure 2 and Table 2.

    ‎
    Figure 2. Diagnostic value of artificial intelligence in different endoscopic outcomes.
    Table 2. Outcomes of artificial intelligence in endoscopy diagnosis.
    StudyDetectionSensitivity (95% CI)Specificity (95% CI)PLRa (95% CI)NLRb (95% CI)DORc (95% CI)AUCd (95% CI)Model
    Tan et al [24]Early Barrett esophagus0.90 (0.87-0.93)0.84 (0.80-0.88)NReNR0.90 (0.87-0.93)NRRandom
    Ma et al et al [22]Early esophageal cancer0.90 (0.82-0.94)0.91 (0.79-0.96)9.8 (3.8-24.8)0.11 (0.06-0.21)NR0.95fNR
    Bang et al [18]Helicobacter pylori Infection0.87 (0.72-0.94)0.86 (0.72-0.96)6.2 (3.8-10.1)0.15 (0.07-0.34)40 (15‐112)0.92 (0.90-0.94)NR
    Guidozzi et al[20]Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma0.91 (0.84-0.95)0.80 (0.63-0.90)NRNRNRNRRandom
    Guidozzi et al [20]Esophageal adenocarcinoma0.91 (0.87-0.94)0.87 (0.82-0.91)NRNRNRNRNR
    Shi et al [23]Chronic atrophic gastritis0.94 (0.88-0.97)0.96 (0.88-0.98)21.58 (7.91-58.85)0.07 (0.04-0.13)320.19 (128.5-797.84)0.98 (0.96-0.99)NR
    Jahagirdar et al [29]Ulcerative colitis0.83 (0.78- 0.87)0.92 (0.89-0.95)NRNRNR0.92 (0.88-0.94)NR
    Keshtkar et al [30]Colorectal polyp0.92 (0.85-0.96)0.94 (0.89-0.96)14.5 (8.4-25.2)0.09 (0.05-0.16)162 (59.44-5)0.97 (0.96-0.99)NR
    Keshtkar et al [30]Colorectal cancer0.94 (0.85-0.98)0.98 (0.94-0.99)41.2 (13.7-124.2)0.06 (0.02-0.16)677 (108-4240)0.99 (0.98-1.00)NR
    Bang et al [32]Gastrointestinal ulcer0.93 (0.89-0.95)0.92 (0.89-0.94)NRNR138 (79-243)0.97 (0.95-0.98)NR
    Bang et al [32]Gastrointestinal hemorrhage0.96 (0.94-0.97)0.97 (0.95-0.99)NRNR888 (343-2303)0.99 (0.98-0.99)NR
    Soffer et al [35]Mucosal ulcers0.95 (0.89-0.98)0.94 (0.90-0.96)NRNRNRNRRandom
    Soffer et al [35]Bleeding0.98 (0.96-0.99)0.99 (0.97-0.99)NRNRNRNRRandom
    Gomes et al [36]Gastrointestinal stromal tumors0.92 (0.89-0.95)0.80 (0.75-0.85)4.26 (2.7-6.7)0.09 (0.14-0.18)71.74 (22.43-229.46)0.949fNR
    Zurek et al [37]Healthy laryngeal tissue0.91 (0.83-0.98)0.97 (0.96-0.99)NRNRNR0.945fRandom
    Zurek et al [37]Benign and malignant lesions0.91 (0.86-0.96)0.95 (0.90-0.99)NRNRNR0.924fRandom
    Bai et al [27]Invasion depth of early colorectal cancer0.71 (0.58-0.81)0.95 (0.91-0.97)NRNRNR0.93 (0.90-0.95)NR
    Qin et al [34]Erosion or ulcers0.96 (0.91-0.98)0.97 (0.93-0.99)36.8 (12.3-110.1)0.04 (0.02-0.09)893 (103-5834)0.99 (0.98-1.00)NR
    Qin et al [34]Gastrointestinal bleeding0.97 (0.93-0.99)1.00 (0.99-1.00)289.4 (80.3-1043.0)0.03 (0.01-0.08)10,291 (1539-68,791)1.00 (0.99-1.00)NR
    Qin et al [34]Polyps and cancer0.97 (0.82-0.99)0.98 (0.92-0.99)42.7 (11.3-161.8)0.03 (0.01-0.21)1291 (60-27-808)0.99 (0.98-1.00)NR
    Mohan et al [33]Gastrointestinal ulcers or hemorrhage0.96 (0.94-0.97)0.96 (0.95-0.97)NRNRNR95.4 (94.3-96.3)NR
    Bang et al [28]Colorectal polyps0.93 (0.91-0.95)0.87 (0.76-0.93)7.1 (3.8-13.3)0.08 (0.06-0.11)87 (38-201)0.96 (0.93-0.97)NR
    Lui et al [31]Colorectal polyps0.92 (0.89-0.95)0.90 (0.85-0.93)NRNRNR0.96 (0.95-0.98)Random
    Lui et al [21]Neoplastic lesions in the stomach0.92 (0.88-0.95)0.88 (0.78-0.95)NRNRNR0.96 (0.94-0.99)NR
    Lui et al [21]Barrett esophagus0.88 (0.83-0.92)0.90 (0.86-0.95)NRNRNR0.96 (0.93-0.99)NR
    Lui et al [21]Neoplastic lesions in squamous esophagus0.76 (0.48-0.93)0.92 (0.67-0.99)NRNRNR0.88 (0.82-0.96)NR
    Lui et al [21]Helicobacter pylori status0.84 (0.71-0.93)0.90 (0.79-0.96)NRNRNR0.92 (0.88-0.97)NR
    Visaggi et al [9]Barrett neoplasia0.89 (0.84-0.93)0.86 (0.83-0.93)6.50 (1.59-2.15)0.13 (0.20-0.08)50.53 (24.74-103.22)0.90 (0.85-0.94)Random
    Visaggi et al [9]Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma0.95 (0.91-0.98)0.92 (0.82-0.97)12.65 (1.61-3.51)0.05 (0.11-0.02)258.36 (44.18-1510.7)0.97 (0.92-0.98)Random
    Visaggi et al [9]Abnormal intrapapillary capillary loops0.94 (0.67-0.99)0.94 (0.84-0.98)14.75 (1.46-3.70)0.07 (0.39-0.01)225.83 (11.05- 4613.93)0.98 (0.86-0.99)Random
    Visaggi et al [9]Gastroesophageal reflux disease0.97 (0.67-1.00)0.97 (0.75-1.00)38.26 (0.98-6.22)0.03 (0.44-0.00)1159.6 (6.12-219711.69)0.99 (0.80-0.99)Random
    Zhang et al [26]Esophageal neoplasms0.94 (0.92-0.96)0.85 (0.73-0.92)6.40 (3.38-12.11)0.06 (0.04-0.10)98.88 (39.45-247.87)0.97 (0.95-0.98)Random
    Xie et al [25]Gastric cancer0.89 (0.85-0.93)0.93 (0.88-0.97)13.4 (7.3-25.5)0.11 (0.07-0.17)NR0.94 (0.91-0.98)Random
    Xie et al [25]Invasion depth of gastric cancer0.82 (0.78-0.85)0.90 (0.82-0.95)8.4 (4.2-16.8)0.20 (0.16-0.26)NR0.90 (0.87-0.93)Random
    Chen et al [19]Gastric cancer0.86 (0.75-0.92)0.90 (0.84-0.93)NRNRNR0.94fNR

    aPLR: positive likelihood ratio.

    bNLR: negative likelihood ratio.

    cDOR: diagnostic odds ratio.

    dAUC: area under the curve.

    eNR: not reported.

    f95% CIs were not reported.

    Grading of Evidence

    We evaluated the reliability of each outcome through GRADE. Results showed that the quality was evaluated as very low for 44.1% of the outcomes and low for 55.9% of the outcomes. Our research found that the sensitivity and specificity of Barrett neoplasia, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, Helicobacter pylori infection, chronological gastritis, colorectal polyp, gastrointestinal ulcer, and gastrointestinal hemorrhage had low credibility. The other outcomes had very low credibility. Generally speaking, the primary defects were indirectness and imprecision. These problems were caused by the different AI models and training methods used in the original literature, and there were also differences in the selection of recognition samples. Endoscopists in different regions used different samples and chose different AI algorithms to train and test the models, making the synthesized results less credible. Detail can be seen in Table S4 in Multimedia Appendix 1.


    Principal Findings

    In this study, we conducted a systematic review of the current use of AI in endoscopic diagnosis, assessing the quality of research and meta-analyses conducted in this field. AI has been studied and applied in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, colorectal endoscopy, capsule endoscopy, and laryngoscopy. The meta-analysis results showed that AI has high sensitivity and specificity for these types of endoscopy. However, the overall evidence level of the outcomes was low.

    In previous studies, AI could effectively assist in sedation and training in the operation process of upper digestive tract examination [39,40]. The earliest research we examined was conducted in 2007, when computers were trained to identify esophageal cancer [41]. At that time, the research only distinguished malignant and nonmalignant esophageal tissues in vitro.

    With the rise of AI and the continuous upgrading of training methods, the application of AI in gastrointestinal endoscopy, including esophageal cancer, gastric cancer, and Helicobacter pylori infection, has been widely studied. In addition to the ordinary white light examination, computer-aided systems have shown a certain diagnostic value in stained and magnifying endoscopic imaging [42,43]. Moreover, some studies have found that trained models have research value in diagnosing gastric cancer’s infiltration depth [44].

    A study in 2022 compared the diagnostic value of computer-aided systems and professional endoscopists in gastric cancer images through retrospective data and found no significant difference in the diagnostic rate between the two groups [45]. This shows that AI aid is not inferior to endoscopists in image diagnosis. Wu conducted a single-center randomized controlled trial and found that the missed diagnosis rate of gastric adenoma could be significantly reduced using AI [46]. Multi-center randomized controlled studies are still needed for further analysis in the future.

    AI has been widely studied in colorectal endoscopy. A meta-analysis showed that AI could effectively improve adenoma detection rate [7]. However, another meta-analysis based on real-world research reached the opposite conclusion [47]. The findings of our study proposed that AI has a noticeable effect in identifying intestinal lesions. However, many problems still need to be effectively addressed, particularly in terms of clinical implementation and practical translation.

    In November 2023, the team at West China Hospital led a 12-center study with more than 10,000 patients [48]. This randomized controlled trial compared the relationship between AI-assisted and routine examinations in the missed diagnosis rate of esophageal lesions. The results showed that AI could not significantly improve the missed diagnosis rate of esophageal lesions. Many teams are constantly developing, improving and trying to use AI models in clinics. As mentioned above, although AI has been shown to have a significant effect in many studies, there has been an increase in research regarding the failure of AI to significantly improve the effectiveness of endoscopy in the clinical situation. In the application process, we found that the recognition threshold of AI greatly affected its application value. We are explored the possiblity of classifying patients according to some baseline information or endoscopic mucosal background images and then continuously optimized the AI recognition threshold according to the risk stratification of different patients. This approach aimed to achieve individualized endoscopic examinations and improve overall identification accuracy [49-51].

    Moreover, the economic impact of a large-scale rollout of AI systems in clinical work on patients and health care institutions must be further studied. In addition, the differences in validation sets make it difficult to truly achieve accurate side-by-side comparisons when evaluating the capabilities of different AI models, which may lead to biased results. We believe it would be beneficial to produce an open platform that includes test data sets from different parts and different lesions of the gastrointestinal tract so that researchers can test the effectiveness of AI recognition in the future.

    This study has several strengths. According to our preliminary understanding, the umbrella evaluation of using AI in endoscopic applications must be revised. To a certain extent, we have filled this blank. Second, we conducted a strict analysis and discussion following the PRISMA guidelines. Third, two researchers conducted all analyses, and the results were reliable.

    There are also some limitations to this study. First, various computer-aid models have certain heterogeneity, and this could not be avoided in the analysis. Therefore, our results are a general summary of the current technology. Second, we could not gather the data of some unpublished studies. Third, the limited number of studies made it difficult to do further subgroup analyses. Fourth, we only included studies reported in English, which might have introduced some biases to our study.

    Conclusions

    This study found that AI has high diagnostic value in endoscopy. These findings provide a theoretical basis for the development and evaluation of AI-assisted systems, aimed at assisting endoscopists in conducting examinations, thereby improving patient health outcomes. However, it is worth noting that there is no convincing high-quality evidence in the existing research and further research is needed in the future.

    Acknowledgments

    This research was supported by the following grants: (1) Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (CIFMS; grants 2021-I2M-1-015, 2021-I2M-1-061, 2021-I2M-1-013, and 2022-I2M-C&T-B-054); (2) Sanming Project of Medicine in Shenzhen (SZSM201911008); (3) Capital’s Funds for Health Improvement and Research (grant CRF2020-2-4025); and (4) Beijing Hope Run Special Fund of Cancer Foundation of China (grant LC2021A03).

    Data Availability

    The data supporting this study’s findings are available on request from the corresponding author.

    Authors' Contributions

    BZ was responsible for data curation, formal analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, supervision, writing the original draft, as well as reviewing and editing the final draft. AC was responsible for data curation, formal analysis, investigation, and resources. GW was responsible for conceptualization, funding acquisition, investigation, and resources.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    Additional statistics.

    DOCX File, 41 KB
    Checklist 1

    PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist.

    DOCX File, 21 KB
    1. Milivojevic V, Milosavljevic T. Burden of gastroduodenal diseases from the global perspective. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol. Jan 2020;18(1):148. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Wu S, Zhang R, Yan J, et al. High-speed and accurate diagnosis of gastrointestinal disease: learning on endoscopy images using lightweight transformer with local feature attention. Bioengineering (Basel). Dec 13, 2023;10(12):1416. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Brand M, Fuchs KH, Troya J, Hann A, Meining A. The role of specialized instruments for advanced endoscopic resections in gastrointestinal disease. Life (Basel). Nov 7, 2023;13(11):2177. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Chino A, Ide D, Abe S, et al. Performance evaluation of a computer-aided polyp detection system with artificial intelligence for colonoscopy. Dig Endosc. Feb 2024;36(2):185-194. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Karsenti D, Tharsis G, Perrot B, et al. Effect of real-time computer-aided detection of colorectal adenoma in routine colonoscopy (COLO-GENIUS): a single-centre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. Aug 2023;8(8):726-734. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Lou S, Du F, Song W, et al. Artificial intelligence for colorectal neoplasia detection during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. EClinicalMedicine. Dec 2023;66:102341. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Wei MT, Fay S, Yung D, Ladabaum U, Kopylov U. Artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy in real-world clinical practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. Mar 1, 2024;15(3):e00671. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Liu Y, Ai YQ, Yang XJ, Zhang P, Zhong C. A meta-analysis of artificial intelligence in detection of colonoscopy adenoma and polyp. Jiangxi Medical Journal. 2023;58(5):543-548. [CrossRef]
    9. Visaggi P, Barberio B, Gregori D, et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: artificial intelligence in the diagnosis of oesophageal diseases. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. Mar 2022;55(5):528-540. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Gimeno-García AZ, Hernández-Pérez A, Nicolás-Pérez D, Hernández-Guerra M. Artificial intelligence applied to colonoscopy: is it time to take a step forward? Cancers (Basel). Apr 7, 2023;15(8):2193. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Maida M, Marasco G, Facciorusso A, et al. Effectiveness and application of artificial intelligence for endoscopic screening of colorectal cancer: the future is now. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. Jul 2023;23(7):719-729. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Farid AB, Irdza TA, Li XJ, ZQ Z. Meta-analysis of the diagnostic value of artificial intelligence technology based on deep learning for early gastric cancer under endoscope. Modern Interv Diagnos Treatment Gastroenterol. 2023;28(1):63-67. [CrossRef]
    13. Chien PFW, Khan KS, Siassakos D. Registration of systematic reviews: PROSPERO. BJOG. Jul 2012;119(8):903-905. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. Farrah K, Young K, Tunis MC, Zhao L. Risk of bias tools in systematic reviews of health interventions: an analysis of PROSPERO-registered protocols. Syst Rev. Nov 15, 2019;8(1):280. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: A Measurement Tool to Assess the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. Feb 15, 2007;7:10. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. Oct 2009;62(10):1013-1020. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. Sep 21, 2017;358:j4008. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Bang CS, Lee JJ, Baik GH. Artificial intelligence for the prediction of Helicobacter pylori infection in endoscopic images: systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy. J Med Internet Res. Sep 16, 2020;22(9):e21983. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Chen PC, Lu YR, Kang YN, Chang CC. The accuracy of artificial intelligence in the endoscopic diagnosis of early gastric cancer: pooled analysis study. J Med Internet Res. May 16, 2022;24(5):e27694. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Guidozzi N, Menon N, Chidambaram S, Markar SR. The role of artificial intelligence in the endoscopic diagnosis of esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Esophagus. Nov 30, 2023;36(12):doad048. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Lui TKL, Tsui VWM, Leung WK. Accuracy of artificial intelligence-assisted detection of upper GI lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. Oct 2020;92(4):821-830. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Ma H, Wang L, Chen Y, Tian L. Convolutional neural network-based artificial intelligence for the diagnosis of early esophageal cancer based on endoscopic images: a meta-analysis. Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2022;28(5):332-340. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Shi Y, Wei N, Wang K, Tao T, Yu F, Lv B. Diagnostic value of artificial intelligence-assisted endoscopy for chronic atrophic gastritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023;10:1134980. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Tan JL, Chinnaratha MA, Woodman R, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) to detect early neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus: a non-comparative systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:890720. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Xie F, Zhang K, Li F, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of convolutional neural network-based endoscopic image analysis in diagnosing gastric cancer and predicting its invasion depth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. Apr 2022;95(4):599-609. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Zhang SM, Wang YJ, Zhang ST. Accuracy of artificial intelligence-assisted detection of esophageal cancer and neoplasms on endoscopic images: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dig Dis. Jun 2021;22(6):318-328. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Bai J, Liu K, Gao L, et al. Computer-aided diagnosis in predicting the invasion depth of early colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy. Surg Endosc. Sep 2023;37(9):6627-6639. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Bang CS, Lee JJ, Baik GH. Computer-aided diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps in endoscopic images: systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy. J Med Internet Res. Aug 25, 2021;23(8):e29682. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Jahagirdar V, Bapaye J, Chandan S, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of convolutional neural network-based machine learning algorithms in endoscopic severity prediction of ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. Aug 2023;98(2):145-154. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Keshtkar K, Safarpour AR, Heshmat R, Sotoudehmanesh R, Keshtkar A. A systematic review and meta-analysis of convolutional neural network in the diagnosis of colorectal polyps and cancer. Turk J Gastroenterol. Oct 2023;34(10):985-997. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Lui TKL, Guo CG, Leung WK. Accuracy of artificial intelligence on histology prediction and detection of colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. Jul 2020;92(1):11-22. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Bang CS, Lee JJ, Baik GH. Correction: computer-aided diagnosis of gastrointestinal ulcer and hemorrhage using wireless capsule endoscopy: systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. Jan 11, 2022;24(1):e36170. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Mohan BP, Khan SR, Kassab LL, et al. High pooled performance of convolutional neural networks in computer-aided diagnosis of GI ulcers and/or hemorrhage on wireless capsule endoscopy images: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. Feb 2021;93(2):356-364. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Qin K, Li J, Fang Y, et al. Convolution neural network for the diagnosis of wireless capsule endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. Jan 2022;36(1):16-31. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. Soffer S, Klang E, Shimon O, et al. Deep learning for wireless capsule endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. Oct 2020;92(4):831-839. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Gomes RSA, de Oliveira GHP, de Moura DTH, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound artificial intelligence-assisted for prediction of gastrointestinal stromal tumors diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastrointest Endosc. Aug 16, 2023;15(8):528-539. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Żurek M, Jasak K, Niemczyk K, Rzepakowska A. Artificial intelligence in laryngeal endoscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med. May 12, 2022;11(10):2752. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. Oct 18, 2011;155(8):529-536. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Di Giulio E, Fregonese D, Casetti T, et al. Training with a computer-based simulator achieves basic manual skills required for upper endoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. Aug 2004;60(2):196-200. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Pambianco DJ, Vargo JJ, Pruitt RE, Hardi R, Martin JF. Computer-assisted personalized sedation for upper endoscopy and colonoscopy: a comparative, multicenter randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc. Apr 2011;73(4):765-772. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Kodashima S, Fujishiro M, Takubo K, et al. Ex vivo pilot study using computed analysis of ENDO-cytoscopic images to differentiate normal and malignant squamous cell epithelia in the oesophagus. Dig Liver Dis. Aug 2007;39(8):762-766. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Kanesaka T, Lee TC, Uedo N, et al. Computer-aided diagnosis for identifying and delineating early gastric cancers in magnifying narrow-band imaging. Gastrointest Endosc. May 2018;87(5):1339-1344. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    43. Nagao S, Tsuji Y, Sakaguchi Y, et al. Highly accurate artificial intelligence systems to predict the invasion depth of gastric cancer: efficacy of conventional white-light imaging, nonmagnifying narrow-band imaging, and Indigo-carmine dye contrast imaging. Gastrointest Endosc. Oct 2020;92(4):866-873. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. Zhu Y, Wang QC, Xu MD, et al. Application of convolutional neural network in the diagnosis of the invasion depth of gastric cancer based on conventional endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. Apr 2019;89(4):806-815. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Niikura R, Aoki T, Shichijo S, et al. Artificial intelligence versus expert endoscopists for diagnosis of gastric cancer in patients who have undergone upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy. Aug 2022;54(8):780-784. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Wu L, Shang R, Sharma P, et al. Effect of a deep learning-based system on the miss rate of gastric neoplasms during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a single-centre, tandem, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. Sep 2021;6(9):700-708. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Patel HK, Mori Y, Hassan C, et al. Lack of effectiveness of computer aided detection for colorectal neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. May 2024;22(5):971-980. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    48. Wei R, Wei P, Yuan H, et al. Inflammation in metal-induced neurological disorders and neurodegenerative diseases. Biol Trace Elem Res. Jan 11, 2024. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Cai C, Chen C, Lin X, et al. An analysis of the relationship of triglyceride glucose index with gastric cancer prognosis: a retrospective study. Cancer Med. Feb 2024;13(3):e6837. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Jia K, Kundrot S, Palchuk MB, et al. A Pancreatic cancer risk prediction model (Prism) developed and validated on large-scale US clinical data. EBioMedicine. Dec 2023;98:104888. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    51. Liu Y, Chen S, Shen W, Qu X, Li S, Shi Y. Construction and validation of a gastric cancer diagnostic model based on blood groups and tumor markers. J Cancer. 2024;15(3):729-736. [CrossRef] [Medline]

    ‎
    AI: artificial intelligence
    AMSTAR: A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews
    EUS: endoscopic ultrasound
    GRADE: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation
    PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses
    PROBAST: Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool
    QUADAS: Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

    Edited by Christian Lovis; submitted 15.01.24; peer-reviewed by Feng Yu, Kai Liu; final revised version received 25.05.24; accepted 26.05.24; published 15.07.24.

    Copyright

    © Bowen Zha, Angshu Cai, Guiqi Wang. Originally published in JMIR Medical Informatics (https://medinform.jmir.org), 15.7.2024.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Medical Informatics, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://medinform.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.