Search

There has been a vast increase in GI literature focused on the use of machine learning in endoscopy. The relative novelty of this field poses a challenge for reviewers and readers of GI journals. To appreciate scientific quality and novelty of machine learning studies, understanding of the technical basis and commonly used techniques is required. Clinicians often lack this technical background, while machine learning experts may be unfamiliar with clinical relevance and implications for daily practice. Therefore, there is an increasing need for a multidisciplinary, international evaluation on how to perform high-quality machine learning research in endoscopy. This review aims to provide guidance for readers and reviewers of peer-reviewed GI journals to allow critical appraisal of the most relevant quality requirements of machine learning studies. The paper provides an overview of common trends and their potential pitfalls and proposes comprehensive quality requirements in six overarching themes: terminology, data, algorithm description, experimental setup, interpretation of results and machine learning in clinical practice.

Background and aims Early gastric cancer (EGC) lesions are often subtle and endoscopically poorly visible. The aim of this study is to evaluate the additive effect of linked color imaging (LCI) next to white-light endoscopy (WLE) for identification of EGC, when assessed by expert and non-expert endoscopists. Methods Forty EGC cases were visualized in corresponding WLE and LCI images. Endoscopists evaluated the cases in 3 assessment phases: Phase 1: WLE images only; Phase 2: LCI images only; Phase 3: WLE and LCI images side-to-side. First, 3 expert endoscopists delineated all cases. A high level of agreement between the expert delineations corresponded with a high AND/OR ratio. Subsequently, 62 non-experts indicated their preferred biopsy location. Outcomes of the study are as follows: (1) difference in expert AND/OR ratio; (2) accuracy of biopsy placement by non-expert endoscopists; and (3) preference of imaging modality by non-expert endoscopists. Results Quantitative agreement between experts increased significantly when LCI was available (0.58 vs. 0.46, p = 0.007). This increase was more apparent for the more challenging cases (0.21 vs. 0.47, p p p Conclusion The addition of LCI next to WLE improves visualization of EGC. Experts reach higher consensus on discrimination between neoplasia and inflammation when using LCI. Non-experts improve their targeted biopsy placement with the use of LCI. LCI therefore appears to be a useful tool for identification of EGC. Graphical abstract

Patients suffering from Barrett's Esophagus (BE) are at an increased risk of developing esophageal adenocarcinoma and early detection is crucial for a good prognosis. To aid the endoscopists with the early detection for this preliminary stage of esophageal cancer, this work concentrates on the development and extensive evaluation of a state-of-the-art computer-aided classification and localization algorithm for dysplastic lesions in BE. To this end, we have employed a large-scale endoscopic data set, consisting of 494,355 images, in combination with a novel semi-supervised learning algorithm to pretrain several instances of the proposed neural network architecture. Next, several Barrett-specific data sets that are increasingly closer to the target domain with significantly more data compared to other related work, were used in a multi-stage transfer learning strategy. Additionally, the algorithm was evaluated on two prospectively gathered external test sets and compared against 53 medical professionals. Finally, the model was also evaluated in a live setting without interfering with the current biopsy protocol. Results from the performed experiments show that the proposed model improves on the state-of-the-art on all measured metrics. More specifically, compared to the best performing state-of-the-art model, the specificity is improved by more than 20% points while simultaneously preserving high sensitivity and reducing the false positive rate substantially. Our algorithm yields similar scores on the localization metrics, where the intersection of all experts is correctly indicated in approximately 92% of the cases. Furthermore, the live pilot study shows great performance in a clinical setting with a patient level accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 90%. Finally, the proposed algorithm outperforms each individual medical expert by at least 5% and the average assessor by more than 10% over all assessor groups with respect to accuracy.