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 And Aims: Achieving histological remission is a desirable emerging treatment target in Ulcerative Colitis (UC), yet its assessment is challenging due to high inter- and intra-observer variability, reliance on experts, and lack of standardisation. Artificial intelligence (AI) holds promise in addressing these issues. This systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression evaluated the AI's performance in assessing histological remission and compared it with that of pathologists.
Methods: We searched Medline/PubMed and Scopus databases from inception to September 2024. We included studies on AI models assessing histological activity in UC, with or without comparison to pathologists. Pooled performance metrics were calculated: sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV & NPV), observed agreement, and F1 score. A pairwise meta-analysis compared AI and pathologists, while sub-meta-analysis and meta-regression evaluated heterogeneity and factors influencing AI performance.
Results: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. AI models exhibited strong performance with a pooled sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI 0.80-0.88), specificity 0.87 (0.84- 0.91), PPV 0.90 (0.87-0.92), NPV 0.80 (0.71-0.88), observed agreement 0.85 (0.82- 0.89), and F1 score 0.85 (0.82-0.89). AI models demonstrated no significant differences with pathologists for specificity, observed agreement and F1 score, while they were outperformed by pathologists for sensitivity and NPV. AI models for the adult population were linked to reduced heterogeneity and enhanced AI performance at meta-regression.
Conclusion: AI shows significant potential for assessing histological remission in UC and performs comparably to pathologists. Future research should focus on standardised, large-scale studies to minimise heterogeneity and support widespread AI implementation in clinical practice.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjae198 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!