4.6 Article

Artificial intelligence-based diagnostic system classifying gastric cancers and ulcers: comparison between the original and newly developed systems

期刊

ENDOSCOPY
卷 52, 期 12, 页码 1077-1083

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/a-1194-8771

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background We previously reported for the first time the usefulness of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in detecting gastric cancers. However, the original convolutional neural network (O-CNN) employed in the previous study had a relatively low positive predictive value (PPV). Therefore, we aimed to develop an advanced AI-based diagnostic system and evaluate its applicability for the classification of gastric cancers and gastric ulcers. Methods We constructed an advanced CNN (A-CNN) by adding a new training dataset (4453 gastric ulcer images from 1172 lesions) to the O-CNN, which had been trained using 13 584 gastric cancer and 373 gastric ulcer images. The diagnostic performance of the A-CNN in terms of classifying gastric cancers and ulcers was retrospectively evaluated using an independent validation dataset ( 739 images from 100 early gastric cancers and 720 images from 120 gastric ulcers) and compared with that of the O-CNN by estimating the overall classification accuracy. Results The sensitivity, specificity, and PPV of the A-CNN in classifying gastric cancer at the lesion level were 99.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 94.6%-100 %), 93.3% (95%CI 87.3%-97.1%), and 92.5% (95%CI 85.8%-96.7%), respectively, and for classifying gastric ulcers were 93.3% (95%CI 87.3%-97.1%), 99.0% (95%CI 94.6%-100 %), and 99.1% (95%CI 95.2%-100 %), respectively. At the lesion level, the overall accuracies of the O- and A-CNN for classifying gastric cancers and gastric ulcers were 45.9% (gastric cancers 100 %, gastric ulcers 0.8 %) and 95.9% (gastric cancers 99.0%, gastric ulcers 93.3 %), respectively. Conclusion The newly developed AI-based diagnostic system can effectively classify gastric cancers and gastriculcers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据