Performance Comparison of the Deep Learning and the Human Endoscopist for Bleeding Peptic Ulcer Disease

Author:

Yen Hsu-Heng,Wu Ping-Yu,Su Pei-Yuan,Yang Chia-Wei,Chen Yang-Yuan,Chen Mei-Fen,Lin Wen-Chen,Tsai Cheng-Lun,Lin Kang-Ping

Abstract

Abstract Purpose Management of peptic ulcer bleeding is clinically challenging. Accurate characterization of the bleeding during endoscopy is key for endoscopic therapy. This study aimed to assess whether a deep learning model can aid in the classification of bleeding peptic ulcer disease. Methods Endoscopic still images of patients (n = 1694) with peptic ulcer bleeding for the last 5 years were retrieved and reviewed. Overall, 2289 images were collected for deep learning model training, and 449 images were validated for the performance test. Two expert endoscopists classified the images into different classes based on their appearance. Four deep learning models, including Mobile Net V2, VGG16, Inception V4, and ResNet50, were proposed and pre-trained by ImageNet with the established convolutional neural network algorithm. A comparison of the endoscopists and trained deep learning model was performed to evaluate the model’s performance on a dataset of 449 testing images. Results The results first presented the performance comparisons of four deep learning models. The Mobile Net V2 presented the optimal performance of the proposal models. The Mobile Net V2 was chosen for further comparing the performance with the diagnostic results obtained by one senior and one novice endoscopists. The sensitivity and specificity were acceptable for the prediction of “normal” lesions in both 3-class and 4-class classifications. For the 3-class category, the sensitivity and specificity were 94.83% and 92.36%, respectively. For the 4-class category, the sensitivity and specificity were 95.40% and 92.70%, respectively. The interobserver agreement of the testing dataset of the model was moderate to substantial with the senior endoscopist. The accuracy of the determination of endoscopic therapy required and high-risk endoscopic therapy of the deep learning model was higher than that of the novice endoscopist. Conclusions In this study, the deep learning model performed better than inexperienced endoscopists. Further improvement of the model may aid in clinical decision-making during clinical practice, especially for trainee endoscopist.

Funder

Changhua Christian Hospital

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Biomedical Engineering,General Medicine

Reference30 articles.

1. Waddell, K. M., Stanley, A. J., & Morris, A. J. (2017). Endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Where are we in 2017? Frontline Gastroenterology, 8(2), 94–97. https://doi.org/10.1136/flgastro-2016-100791.

2. Penny, H. A., Kurien, M., Wong, E., Ahmed, R., Ejenavi, E., Lau, M., Romaya, C., Gohar, F., Dear, K. L., Kapur, K., Hoeroldt, B., Lobo, A. J., & Sanders, D. S. (2016). Changing trends in the UK management of upper GI bleeding: Is there evidence of reduced UK training experience? Frontline Gastroenterology, 7(1), 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1136/flgastro-2014-100537.

3. Gralnek, I. M., Dumonceau, J. M., Kuipers, E. J., Lanas, A., Sanders, D. S., Kurien, M., Rotondano, G., Hucl, T., Dinis-Ribeiro, M., Marmo, R., Racz, I., Arezzo, A., Hoffmann, R.-T., Lesur, G., de Franchis, R., Aabakken, L., Veitch, A., Radaelli, F., Salgueiro, P., … Hassan, C. (2015). Diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy, 47(10), a1-46. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1393172.

4. Forrest, J. A., Finlayson, N. D., & Shearman, D. J. (1974). Endoscopy in gastrointestinal bleeding. Lancet, 2(7877), 394–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(74)91770-x.

5. Yen, H. H., Yang, C. W., Su, W. W., Soon, M. S., Wu, S. S., & Lin, H. J. (2012). Oral versus intravenous proton pump inhibitors in preventing re-bleeding for patients with peptic ulcer bleeding after successful endoscopic therapy. BMC Gastroenterology, 12, 66. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-230X-12-66.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3