Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2023
Artificial intelligence for evaluating the risk of gastric cancer: reliable detection and scoring of intestinal metaplasia with deep learning algorithms.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Iwaya Mai, Hayashi Yuichiro, Sakai Yasuhiro, Yoshizawa Akihiko, Iwaya Yugo, Uehara Takeshi, Kitagawa Masanobu, Fukayama Masashi, Mori Kensaku, Ota Hiroyoshi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Gastric cancer (GC) is associated with chronic gastritis. To evaluate the risk, the Operative Link on Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia Assessment (OLGIM) system was constructed and showed a higher GC risk in stage III or IV patients, determined by the degree of intestinal metaplasia (IM). Although the OLGIM system is useful, evaluating the degree of IM requires substantial experience to produce precise scoring. Whole-slide imaging is becoming routine, but most artificial intelligence (AI) systems in pathology are focused on neoplastic lesions.
METHODS: Hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides were scanned. Images were divided into each gastric biopsy tissue sample and labeled with an IM score. IM was scored as follows: 0 (no IM), 1 (mild IM), 2 (moderate IM), and 3 (severe IM). Overall, 5753 images were prepared. A deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) model, ResNet50, was used for classification.
RESULTS: ResNet50 classified images with and without IM with a sensitivity of 97.7% and specificity of 94.6%. IM scores 2 and 3, involved as criteria of stage III or IV in the OLGIM system, were classified by ResNet50 in 18%. The respective sensitivity and specificity values of classifying IM between scores 0 and 1 and 2 and 3 were 98.5% and 94.9%, respectively. The IM scores classified by pathologists and the AI system were different in only 438 images (7.6%), and we found that ResNet50 tended to miss small foci of IM but successfully identified minimal IM areas that pathologists missed during the review.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggested that this AI system would contribute to evaluating the risk of GC accuracy, reliability, and repeatability with worldwide standardization.
METHODS: Hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides were scanned. Images were divided into each gastric biopsy tissue sample and labeled with an IM score. IM was scored as follows: 0 (no IM), 1 (mild IM), 2 (moderate IM), and 3 (severe IM). Overall, 5753 images were prepared. A deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) model, ResNet50, was used for classification.
RESULTS: ResNet50 classified images with and without IM with a sensitivity of 97.7% and specificity of 94.6%. IM scores 2 and 3, involved as criteria of stage III or IV in the OLGIM system, were classified by ResNet50 in 18%. The respective sensitivity and specificity values of classifying IM between scores 0 and 1 and 2 and 3 were 98.5% and 94.9%, respectively. The IM scores classified by pathologists and the AI system were different in only 438 images (7.6%), and we found that ResNet50 tended to miss small foci of IM but successfully identified minimal IM areas that pathologists missed during the review.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggested that this AI system would contribute to evaluating the risk of GC accuracy, reliability, and repeatability with worldwide standardization.