Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 5, 2025

Drug-Induced Sleep Endoscopy DISE with Target Controlled Infusion TCI and Bispectral Analysis in Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Published on: December 6, 2016
Systematic review with meta-analysis: artificial intelligence in the diagnosis of oesophageal diseases
Pierfrancesco Visaggi1, Brigida Barberio2, Dario Gregori3
1Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Background:
Artificial intelligence (AI) has recently been applied to endoscopy and questionnaires for the evaluation of oesophageal diseases (ODs).
Aim:
We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis to evaluate the performance of AI in the diagnosis of malignant and benign OD.
Methods:
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMBASE Classic and the Cochrane Library. A bivariate random-effect model was used to calculate pooled diagnostic efficacy of AI models and endoscopists. The reference tests were histology for neoplasms and the clinical and instrumental diagnosis for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The pooled area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (PLR and NLR) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were estimated.
Results:
For the diagnosis of Barrett's neoplasia, AI had AUROC of 0.90, sensitivity 0.89, specificity 0.86, PLR 6.50, NLR 0.13 and DOR 50.53. AI models' performance was comparable with that of endoscopists (P = 0.35). For the diagnosis of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma, the AUROC, sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR were 0.97, 0.95, 0.92, 12.65, 0.05 and DOR 258.36, respectively. In this task, AI performed better than endoscopists although without statistically significant differences. In the detection of abnormal intrapapillary capillary loops, the performance of AI was: AUROC 0.98, sensitivity 0.94, specificity 0.94, PLR 14.75, NLR 0.07 and DOR 225.83. For the diagnosis of GERD based on questionnaires, the AUROC, sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR were 0.99, 0.97, 0.97, 38.26, 0.03 and 1159.6, respectively.
Conclusions:
AI demonstrated high performance in the clinical and endoscopic diagnosis of OD.
Related Concept Videos
Esophageal Strictures-II: Clinical Features and Management
Healthcare providers should gather a comprehensive medical history and conduct a physical examination for diagnosis. If esophageal stricture is...
Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease II: Clinical Features and Management
Clinical Manifestations
GERD presents itself in a multitude of ways, with symptoms varying from person to person. The hallmark symptoms are...
Barrett Esophagus-II: Clinical Manifestations and Management
To diagnose Barrett's esophagus, healthcare providers often recommend an endoscopy for those showing symptoms of acid reflux. The procedure...
Esophageal Varices-II: Clinical Features and Management
In the initial assessment, a thorough review of the patient's medical history is vital to identify risk factors such as liver disease, alcohol...
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease-IV: Assessement and Diagnostic Studies
Medical History
Peptic Ulcer Disease III: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Few clinical manifestations differentiate gastric ulcers from duodenal ulcers. Distinctions in the location, timing, and pain relief are crucial for healthcare providers in differentiating between gastric and duodenal ulcers during clinical assessments.

