Systematic review of artificial intelligence-based image diagnosis for inflammatory bowel disease

Can artificial intelligence replace endoscopists when assessing mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis? A systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis

BACKGROUNDS AND AIMS

Mucosal healing (MH) in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) is an important landmark for clinical decision making. Artificial intelligence systems (AI) that automatically deliver the grade of endoscopic inflammation may solve moderate interobserver agreement and the need of central reading in clinical trials.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of EMBASE and MEDLINE databases up to 01/12/2022 following PRISMA and the Joanna Briggs Institute methodologies to answer the following question: "Can AI replace endoscopists when assessing MH in IBD?". The research was restricted to ulcerative colitis (UC), and a diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) meta-analysis was performed. Risk of bias was evaluated with QUADAS-2 tool.

RESULTS

A total of 21 / 739 records were selected for full text evaluation, and 12 were included in the meta-analysis. Deep learning algorithms based on convolutional neural networks architecture achieved a satisfactory performance in evaluating MH on UC, with sensitivity, specificity, DOR and SROC of respectively 0.91(CI95 %:0.86-0.95);0.89(CI95 %:0.84-0.93);92.42(CI95 %:54.22-157.53) and 0.957 when evaluating fixed images (n = 8) and 0.86(CI95 %:0.75-0.93);0.91(CI95 %:0.87-0.94);70.86(CI95 %:24.63-203.86) and 0.941 when evaluating videos (n = 6). Moderate-high levels of heterogeneity were noted, limiting the quality of the evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

AI systems showed high potential in detecting MH in UC with optimal diagnostic performance, although moderate-high heterogeneity of the data was noted. Standardised and shared AI training may reduce heterogeneity between systems.

The development of artificial intelligence in the histological diagnosis of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD-AI)

BACKGROUND

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) includes Crohn's Disease (CD) and Ulcerative Colitis (UC). Correct diagnosis requires the identification of precise morphological features such basal plasmacytosis. However, histopathological interpretation can be challenging, and it is subject to high variability.

AIM

The IBD-Artificial Intelligence (AI) project aims at the development of an AI-based evaluation system to support the diagnosis of IBD, semi-automatically quantifying basal plasmacytosis.

METHODS

A deep learning model was trained to detect and quantify plasma cells on a public dataset of 4981 annotated images. The model was then tested on an external validation cohort of 356 intestinal biopsies of CD, UC and healthy controls. AI diagnostic performance was calculated compared to human gold standard.

RESULTS

The system correctly found that CD and UC samples had a greater prevalence of basal plasma cells with mean number of PCs within ROIs of 38.22 (95 % CI: 31.73, 49.04) for CD, 55.16 (46.57, 65.93) for UC, and 17.25 (CI: 12.17, 27.05) for controls. Overall, OR=4.968 (CI: 1.835, 14.638) was found for IBD compared to normal mucosa (CD: +59 %; UC: +129 %). Additionally, as expected, UC samples were found to have more plasma cells in colon than CD cases.

CONCLUSION

Our model accurately replicated human assessment of basal plasmacytosis, underscoring the value of AI models as a potential aid IBD diagnosis.

AI Quality Standards in Health Care: Rapid Umbrella Review

BACKGROUND

In recent years, there has been an upwelling of artificial intelligence (AI) studies in the health care literature. During this period, there has been an increasing number of proposed standards to evaluate the quality of health care AI studies.

OBJECTIVE

This rapid umbrella review examines the use of AI quality standards in a sample of health care AI systematic review articles published over a 36-month period.

METHODS

We used a modified version of the Joanna Briggs Institute umbrella review method. Our rapid approach was informed by the practical guide by Tricco and colleagues for conducting rapid reviews. Our search was focused on the MEDLINE database supplemented with Google Scholar. The inclusion criteria were English-language systematic reviews regardless of review type, with mention of AI and health in the abstract, published during a 36-month period. For the synthesis, we summarized the AI quality standards used and issues noted in these reviews drawing on a set of published health care AI standards, harmonized the terms used, and offered guidance to improve the quality of future health care AI studies.

RESULTS

We selected 33 review articles published between 2020 and 2022 in our synthesis. The reviews covered a wide range of objectives, topics, settings, designs, and results. Over 60 AI approaches across different domains were identified with varying levels of detail spanning different AI life cycle stages, making comparisons difficult. Health care AI quality standards were applied in only 39% (13/33) of the reviews and in 14% (25/178) of the original studies from the reviews examined, mostly to appraise their methodological or reporting quality. Only a handful mentioned the transparency, explainability, trustworthiness, ethics, and privacy aspects. A total of 23 AI quality standard-related issues were identified in the reviews. There was a recognized need to standardize the planning, conduct, and reporting of health care AI studies and address their broader societal, ethical, and regulatory implications.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the growing number of AI standards to assess the quality of health care AI studies, they are seldom applied in practice. With increasing desire to adopt AI in different health topics, domains, and settings, practitioners and researchers must stay abreast of and adapt to the evolving landscape of health care AI quality standards and apply these standards to improve the quality of their AI studies.

Machine learning application in autoimmune diseases: State of art and future prospectives

Autoimmune diseases are a group of disorders resulting from an alteration of immune tolerance, characterized by the formation of autoantibodies and the consequent development of heterogeneous clinical manifestations. Diagnosing autoimmune diseases is often complicated, and the available prognostic tools are limited. Machine learning allows us to analyze large amounts of data and carry out complex calculations quickly and with minimal effort. In this work, we examine the literature focusing on the use of machine learning in the field of the main systemic (systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis) and organ-specific autoimmune diseases (type 1 diabetes mellitus, autoimmune thyroid, gastrointestinal, and skin diseases). From our analysis, interesting applications of machine learning emerged for developing algorithms useful in the early diagnosis of disease or prognostic models (risk of complications, therapeutic response). Subsequent studies and the creation of increasingly rich databases to be supplied to the algorithms will eventually guide the clinician in the diagnosis, allowing intervention when the pathology is still in an early stage and immediately directing towards a correct therapeutic approach.

Systematic reviews of machine learning in healthcare: a literature review

INTRODUCTION

The increasing availability of data and computing power has made machine learning (ML) a viable approach to faster, more efficient healthcare delivery.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) of published SLRs evaluating ML applications in healthcare settings published between1 January 2010 and 27 March 2023 was conducted.

RESULTS

In total 220 SLRs covering 10,462 ML algorithms were reviewed. The main application of AI in medicine related to the clinical prediction and disease prognosis in oncology and neurology with the use of imaging data. Accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity were provided in 56%, 28%, and 25% SLRs respectively. Internal and external validation was reported in 53% and less than 1% of the cases respectively. The most common modeling approach was neural networks (2,454 ML algorithms), followed by support vector machine and random forest/decision trees (1,578 and 1,522 ML algorithms, respectively).

EXPERT OPINION

The review indicated considerable reporting gaps in terms of the ML's performance, both internal and external validation. Greater accessibility to healthcare data for developers can ensure the faster adoption of ML algorithms into clinical practice.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of artificial intelligence-diagnosed endoscopic remission in ulcerative colitis

Endoscopic remission is an important therapeutic goal in ulcerative colitis (UC). The Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) and Mayo Endoscopic Score (MES) are the commonly used endoscopic scoring criteria. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) in diagnosing endoscopic remission in UC. We also performed a meta-analysis of each of the four endoscopic remission criteria (UCEIS = 0, MES = 0, UCEIS = <1, MES = <1). Eighteen studies involving 13,687 patients were included. The combined sensitivity and specificity of AI for diagnosing endoscopic remission in UC was 87% (95% confidence interval [CI]:81-92%) and 92% (95% CI: 89-94%), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.97). The results showed that the AI model performed well regardless of which criteria were used to define endoscopic remission of UC.