Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 17, 2025
Introduction of an Integrated Pathology Image Management, Artificial Intelligence, and Reporting System
Published on: July 11, 2025
Accuracy of artificial intelligence-assisted detection of upper GI lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Thomas K L Lui1, Vivien W M Tsui1, Wai K Leung1
1Department of Medicine, Queen Mary Hospital, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Background And Aims:
Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted detection is increasingly used in upper endoscopy. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic accuracy of AI on detection of gastric and esophageal neoplastic lesions and Helicobacter pylori (HP) status.
Methods:
We searched Embase, PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases for studies on AI detection of gastric or esophageal neoplastic lesions and HP status. After assessing study quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool, a bivariate meta-analysis following a random-effects model was used to summarize the data and plot hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic curves. The diagnostic accuracy was determined by the area under the hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC).
Results:
Twenty-three studies including 969,318 images were included. The AUC of AI detection of neoplastic lesions in the stomach, Barrett's esophagus, and squamous esophagus and HP status were .96 (95% confidence interval [CI], .94-.99), .96 (95% CI, .93-.99), .88 (95% CI, .82-.96), and .92 (95% CI, .88-.97), respectively. AI using narrow-band imaging was superior to white-light imaging on detection of neoplastic lesions in squamous esophagus (.92 vs .83, P < .001). The performance of AI was superior to endoscopists in the detection of neoplastic lesions in the stomach (AUC, .98 vs .87; P < .001), Barrett's esophagus (AUC, .96 vs .82; P < .001), and HP status (AUC, .90 vs .82; P < .001).
Conclusions:
AI is accurate in the detection of upper GI neoplastic lesions and HP infection status. However, most studies were based on retrospective reviews of selected images, which requires further validation in prospective trials.
