Capsule endoscopy with artificial intelligence-assisted technology: Real-world usage of a validated AI model for capsule image review

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Access

openAccess

Embargo end date

Citation

O'Hara FJ, McNamara D, Capsule endoscopy with artificial intelligence-assisted technology: Real-world usage of a validated AI model for capsule image review, Endoscopy International Open, 11, 10, 2023, E970 - E975

Abstract

Background and study aims Capsule endoscopy is a time-consuming procedure with a significance error rate. Artificial intelligence (AI) can potentially reduce reading time significantly by reducing the number of images that need human review. An OMOM Artificial Intelligence-enabled small bowel capsule has been recently trained and validated for small bowel capsule endoscopy video review. This study aimed to assess its performance in a real-world setting in comparison with standard reading methods. Patients and methods In this single-center retrospective study, 40 patient studies performed using the OMOM cap- sule were analyzed first with standard reading methods and later using AI-assisted reading. Reading time, pathology identified, intestinal landmark identification and bowel preparation assessment (Brotz Score) were compared. Results Overall diagnosis correlated 100% between the two reading methods. In a per-lesion analysis, 1293 images of significant lesions were identified combining standard and AI-assisted reading methods. AI-assisted reading captured 1268 (98.1%, 95% CI 97.15–98.7) of these findings while standard reading mode captured 1114 (86.2%, 95% confidence interval 84.2–87.9), P < 0.001. Mean reading time went from 29.7 minutes with standard reading to 2.3 minutes with AI-assisted reading (P < 0.001), for an average time saving of 27.4 minutes per study. Time of first cecal image showed a wide discrepancy between AI and standard reading of 99.2 minutes (r = 0.085, P = 0.68). Bowel cleansing evaluation agreed in 97.4% (r = 0.805 P < 0.001). Conclusions AI-assisted reading has shown significant time savings without reducing sensitivity in this study. Limitations remain in the evaluation of other indicators.

Description

PUBLISHED

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Referenced By

Keywords

Author's Homepage: http://people.tcd.ie/mcnamad
Type of material: Journal Article