Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: () infection is associated with various gastrointestinal diseases and may lead to gastric cancer. Currently, endoscopy is the gold standard modality used for diagnosing infection, but it lacks objective indicators and requires expert interpretation. In the past few years, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for diagnosing gastrointestinal pathologies has increased tremendously and may improve the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopy for infection. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of AI algorithms for detecting . infection using endoscopic images.
Methods: Three investigators searched the PubMed, CINHAL and Cochrane databases for studies that compared AI algorithms with endoscopic histopathology for diagnosing infection using endoscopic images. We assessed the methodological quality of studies using the QUADAS-2 tool and performed a meta-analysis to estimate the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of AI for detecting infection.
Results: A total of 11 studies were identified that met our inclusion criteria. All were conducted in different countries based in Asia. Our meta-analysis showed that AI had high sensitivity (0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.95), specificity (0.92, 95%CI 0.89-0.94), and accuracy (0.92, 95%CI 0.90-0.94) for detecting infection using endoscopic images. However, there was also high heterogeneity among the studies (Tau=0.87, =76.10% for generalized effect size; Tau=1.53, =80.72% for sensitivity; Tau=0.57, =70.86% for specificity).
Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that AI had high diagnostic accuracy for detecting infection using endoscopic images.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11574149 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.20524/aog.2024.0913 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!