Search

Artificial Intelligence (ai) systems are precious support for decision-making, with many applications also in the medical domain. The interaction between mds and ai enjoys a renewed interest following the increased possibilities of deep learning devices. However, we still have limited evidence-based knowledge of the context, design, and psychological mechanisms that craft an optimal human–ai collaboration. In this multicentric study, 21 endoscopists reviewed 504 videos of lesions prospectively acquired from real colonoscopies. They were asked to provide an optical diagnosis with and without the assistance of an ai support system. Endoscopists were influenced by ai (OR=3.05), but not erratically: they followed the ai advice more when it was correct (OR=3.48) than incorrect (OR=1.85). Endoscopists achieved this outcome through a weighted integration of their and the ai opinions, considering the case-by-case estimations of the two reliabilities. This Bayesian-like rational behavior allowed the human–ai hybrid team to outperform both agents taken alone. We discuss the features of the human–ai interaction that determined this favorable outcome.

Background: Gastric cancer (GC) is clinically heterogenous according to location (cardia/non-cardia) and histopathology (diffuse/intestinal). We aimed to characterize the genetic risk architecture of GC according to its subtypes. Another aim was to examine whether cardia GC and oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) and its precursor lesion Barrett's oesophagus (BO), which are all located at the gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ), share polygenic risk architecture. Methods: We did a meta-analysis of ten European genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of GC and its subtypes. All patients had a histopathologically confirmed diagnosis of gastric adenocarcinoma. For the identification of risk genes among GWAS loci we did a transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS) and expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL) study from gastric corpus and antrum mucosa. To test whether cardia GC and OAC/BO share genetic aetiology we also used a European GWAS sample with OAC/BO. Findings: Our GWAS consisting of 5816 patients and 10,999 controls highlights the genetic heterogeneity of GC according to its subtypes. We newly identified two and replicated five GC risk loci, all of them with subtype-specific association. The gastric transcriptome data consisting of 361 corpus and 342 antrum mucosa samples revealed that an upregulated expression of MUC1, ANKRD50, PTGER4, and PSCA are plausible GC-pathomechanisms at four GWAS loci. At another risk locus, we found that the blood-group 0 exerts protective effects for non-cardia and diffuse GC, while blood-group A increases risk for both GC subtypes. Furthermore, our GWAS on cardia GC and OAC/BO (10,279 patients, 16,527 controls) showed that both cancer entities share genetic aetiology at the polygenic level and identified two new risk loci on the single-marker level. Interpretation: Our findings show that the pathophysiology of GC is genetically heterogenous according to location and histopathology. Moreover, our findings point to common molecular me

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND : The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has developed a core curriculum for high quality optical diagnosis training for practice across Europe. The development of easy-to-measure competence standards for optical diagnosis can optimize clinical decision-making in endoscopy. This manuscript represents an official Position Statement of the ESGE aiming to define simple, safe, and easy-to-measure competence standards for endoscopists and artificial intelligence systems performing optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps (1 - 5 mm). METHODS : A panel of European experts in optical diagnosis participated in a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on Simple Optical Diagnosis Accuracy (SODA) competence standards for implementation of the optical diagnosis strategy for diminutive colorectal polyps. In order to assess the clinical benefits and harms of implementing optical diagnosis with different competence standards, a systematic literature search was performed. This was complemented with the results from a recently performed simulation study that provides guidance for setting alternative competence standards for optical diagnosis. Proposed competence standards were based on literature search and simulation study results. Competence standards were accepted if at least 80 % agreement was reached after a maximum of three voting rounds. RECOMMENDATION 1: In order to implement the leave-in-situ strategy for diminutive colorectal lesions (1-5 mm), it is clinically acceptable if, during real-time colonoscopy, at least 90 % sensitivity and 80 % specificity is achieved for high confidence endoscopic characterization of colorectal neoplasia of 1-5 mm in the rectosigmoid. Histopathology is used as the gold standard.Level of agreement 95 %. RECOMMENDATION 2: In order to implement the resect-and-discard strategy for diminutive colorectal lesions (1-5 mm), it is clinically acceptable if, during real-time colonoscopy, at least 80 % sensitivit

01 augustus 2022, Item does not contain fulltext, Climate change and the destruction of ecosystems by human activities are among the greatest challenges of the 21st century and require urgent action. Health care activities significantly contribute to the emission of greenhouse gases and waste production, with gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy being one of the largest contributors. This Position Statement aims to raise awareness of the ecological footprint of GI endoscopy and provides guidance to reduce its environmental impact. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) outline suggestions and recommendations for health care providers, patients, governments, and industry. MAIN STATEMENTS 1: GI endoscopy is a resource-intensive activity with a significant yet poorly assessed environmental impact. 2: ESGE-ESGENA recommend adopting immediate actions to reduce the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. 3: ESGE-ESGENA recommend adherence to guidelines and implementation of audit strategies on the appropriateness of GI endoscopy to avoid the environmental impact of unnecessary procedures. 4: ESGE-ESGENA recommend the embedding of reduce, reuse, and recycle programs in the GI endoscopy unit. 5: ESGE-ESGENA suggest that there is an urgent need to reassess and reduce the environmental and economic impact of single-use GI endoscopic devices. 6: ESGE-ESGENA suggest against routine use of single-use GI endoscopes. However, their use could be considered in highly selected patients on a case-by-case basis. 7: ESGE-ESGENA recommend inclusion of sustainability in the training curricula of GI endoscopy and as a quality domain. 8: ESGE-ESGENA recommend conducting high quality research to quantify and minimize the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. 9: ESGE-ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy companies assess, disclose, and audit the environmental impact of their value chain. 10: ESGE-ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy should becom

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext

elicobacter pylori Infection is formally recognised as an infectious disease, an entity that is now included in the International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision. This in principle leads to the recommendation that all infected patients should receive treatment. In the context of the wide clinical spectrum associated with Helicobacter pylori gastritis, specific issues persist and require regular updates for optimised management. The identification of distinct clinical scenarios, proper testing and adoption of effective strategies for prevention of gastric cancer and other complications are addressed. H. pylori treatment is challenged by the continuously rising antibiotic resistance and demands for susceptibility testing with consideration of novel molecular technologies and careful selection of first line and rescue therapies. The role of H. pylori and antibiotic therapies and their impact on the gut microbiota are also considered. Progress made in the management of H. pylori infection is covered in the present sixth edition of the Maastricht/ Florence 2021 Consensus Report, key aspects related to the clinical role of H. pylori infection were re-evaluated and updated. Forty-one experts from 29 countries representing a global community, examined the new data related to H. pylori infection in five working groups: (1) indications/associations, (2) diagnosis, (3) treatment, (4) prevention/gastric cancer and (5) H. pylori and the gut microbiota. The results of the individual working groups were presented for a final consensus voting that included all participants. Recommendations are provided on the basis of the best available evidence and relevance to the management of H. pylori infection in various clinical fields.

Widespread adoption of optical diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia is prevented by suboptimal endoscopist performance and lack of standardized training and competence evaluation. We aimed to assess diagnostic accuracy of endoscopists in optical diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia in the framework of artificial intelligence (AI) validation studies. Literature searches of databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus) up to April 2022 were performed to identify articles evaluating accuracy of individual endoscopists in performing optical diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia within studies validating AI against a histologically verified ground-truth. The main outcomes were endoscopists' pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV/NPV), positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR) and area under the curve (AUC for sROC) for predicting adenomas versus non-adenomas. Six studies with 67 endoscopists and 2085 (IQR: 115–243,5) patients were evaluated. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for adenomatous histology was respectively 84.5% (95% CI 80.3%–88%) and 83% (95% CI 79.6%–85.9%), corresponding to a PPV, NPV, LR+, LR− of 89.5% (95% CI 87.1%–91.5%), 75.7% (95% CI 70.1%–80.7%), 5 (95% CI 3.9%–6.2%) and 0.19 (95% CI 0.14%–0.25%). The AUC was 0.82 (CI 0.76–0.90). Expert endoscopists showed a higher sensitivity than non-experts (90.5%, [95% CI 87.6%–92.7%] vs. 75.5%, [95% CI 66.5%–82.7%], p < 0.001), and Eastern endoscopists showed a higher sensitivity than Western (85%, [95% CI 80.5%–88.6%] vs. 75.8%, [95% CI 70.2%–80.6%]). Quality was graded high for 3 studies and low for 3 studies. We show that human accuracy for diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia in the setting of AI studies is suboptimal. Educational interventions could benefit by AI validation settings which seem a feasible framework for competence assessment.

Background To date, no scale has been validated to assess bubbles associated with bowel preparation. This study aimed to develop and assess the reliability of a novel scale - the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS). Methods This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study with two online evaluation phases of 45 randomly distributed still colonoscopy images (15 per scale grade). Observers assessed images twice, 2 weeks apart, using CEBuS (CEBuS-0 - no or minimal bubbles, covering<5% of the surface; CEBuS-1 - bubbles covering 5%-50%; CEBuS-2 - bubbles covering >50%) and reporting the clinical action (do nothing; wash with water; wash with simethicone). Results CEBuS provided high levels of agreement both in evaluation Phase 1 (4 experts) and Phase 2 (6 experts and 13 non-experts), with almost perfect intraobserver reliability: kappa 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.75-0.88) and 0.86 (0.85-0.88); interobserver agreement - intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.83 (0.73-0.89) and 0.90 (0.86-0.94). Previous endoscopic experience had no influence on agreement among experts vs. non-experts: kappa 0.86 (0.80-0.91) vs. 0.87 (0.84-0.89) and ICC 0.91 (0.87-0.94) vs. 0.90 (0.86-0.94), respectively. Interobserver agreement on clinical action was ICC 0.63 (0.43-0.78) in Phase 1 and 0.77 (0.68-0.84) in Phase 2.Absolute agreement on clinical action per scale grade was 85% (82-88) for CEBuS-0, 21% (16-26) for CEBuS-1, and 74% (70-78) for CEBuS-2. Conclusion CEBuS proved to be a reliable instrument to standardize the evaluation of colonic bubbles during colonoscopy. Assessment in daily practice is warranted.

Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common neoplasm in Western countries. Prioritizing access to colonoscopy appears of critical relevance. Alarm features are considered to increase the likelihood of CRC. Our aim was to assess the diagnostic performance of alarm features for CRC diagnosis. Methods We performed a systematic review and metaanalysis of studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of alarm features (rectal bleeding, anemia, change in bowel habit, and weight loss) for CRC, published up to September 2021. Colonoscopy was required as the reference diagnostic test. Diagnostic accuracy measures were pooled by a bivariate mixed-effects regression model. The number needed to scope (NNS; i. e. the number of patients who need to undergo colonoscopy to diagnose one CRC) according to each alarm feature was calculated. Results 31 studies with 45 100 patients (mean age 31 88 years; men 36% 63 %) were included. The prevalence of CRC ranged from 0.2% to 22%. Sensitivity was suboptimal, ranging from 12.4% for weight loss to 49% for rectal bleeding, whereas specificity ranged from 69.8% for rectal bleeding to 91.9% for weight loss. Taken individually, rectal bleeding and anemia would be the only practical alarm features mandating colonoscopy (NNS 5.3 and 6.7, respectively). Conclusions When considered independently, alarm features have variable accuracy for CRC, given the high heterogeneity of study populations reflected by wide variability in CRC prevalence. Rectal bleeding and anemia are the most practical to select patients for colonoscopy. Integration of alarm features in a comprehensive evaluation of patients should be considered.

Contains fulltext : 235679.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: One of the aims of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is to encourage high quality endoscopic research at a European level. In 2016, the ESGE research committee published a set of research priorities. As endoscopic research is flourishing, we aimed to review the literature and determine whether endoscopic research over the last 4 years had managed to address any of our previously published priorities. METHODS: As the previously published priorities were grouped under seven different domains, a working party with at least two European experts was created for each domain to review all the priorities under that domain. A structured review form was developed to standardize the review process. The group conducted an extensive literature search relevant to each of the priorities and then graded the priorities into three categories: (1) no longer a priority (well-designed trial, incorporated in national/international guidelines or adopted in routine clinical practice); (2) remains a priority (i. e. the above criterion was not met); (3) redefine the existing priority (i. e. the priority was too vague with the research question not clearly defined). RESULTS: The previous ESGE research priorities document published in 2016 had 26 research priorities under seven domains. Our review of these priorities has resulted in seven priorities being removed from the list, one priority being partially removed, another seven being redefined to make them more precise, with eleven priorities remaining unchanged. This is a reflection of a rapid surge in endoscopic research, resulting in 27 % of research questions having already been answered and another 27 % requiring redefinition. CONCLUSIONS: Our extensive review process has led to the removal of seven research priorities from the previous (2016) list, leaving 19 research priorities that have been redefined to make them more precise and relevant for researchers and funding bodies to target.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has developed performance measures and established a framework for quality assessment for gastrointestinal endoscopy in Europe. Most national societies actively undertake initiatives to implement and explicitly endorse these quality indicators. Given this, ESGE proposes that, at a national level, strong leadership should exist to disseminate and implement quality parameters. Thus, understanding the potential barriers that may vary locally is of paramount importance. ESGE suggests that each national society should prioritize quality and standards of care in gastrointestinal endoscopy in their activities and should survey/understand which measures are a local priority to their members and make measuring quality intrinsic to daily endoscopy practice.

Background: Colonoscopy is frequently performed in industrialised countries. Inappropriate colonoscopies might lead to unnecessary exams, increasing risks and costs. Aim: To estimate the impact of colonoscopy appropriateness in terms of gain in additional diagnoses and sparing of unnecessary exams. Methods: Systematic review including studies reporting the prevalence of relevant findings, colorectal cancer (CRC) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) according to colonoscopy appropriateness as defined by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and European Panel on Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Results: Twenty-one studies with 19,822 patients were included. Colonoscopy was appropriate in 15,162 (71%, CI 64%-78%). Appropriateness significantly increased the probability of relevant findings (34% vs. 18%; RR 1.81, CI 1.53-2.14), CRC (7% vs. 2%; RR 3.62, CI 2.44-5.37) and IBD (6% vs. 4%; RR 1.86, CI 1.09-3.19). Appropriateness had sensitivity 88% (CI 85%-91%), 97% (CI 93%-98%) and 89% (CI 80%-94%), and specificity 24% (CI 20%-29%), 22% (CI 18%-26%) and 24% (CI 20%-28%) for relevant findings, CRC and IBD, respectively. On average, performing colonoscopy with appropriate indication would find 15 (CI 10-21) more relevant findings, five (CI 3-9) more CRCs and three (CI 1-9) more diagnoses of IBD per 100 patients, and save 24 (CI 20-29), 22 (CI 18-26) and 24 (CI 20-28) examinations per 100 patients for relevant findings, CRC and IBD, respectively. Conclusions: Appropriateness affects the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy for CRC, IBD and relevant findings. Appropriateness criteria are useful, although integrated with clinical evaluation of the patient.