Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 May-Jun;11(3):156-169.
doi: 10.4103/EUS-D-21-00063.

Pooled diagnostic parameters of artificial intelligence in EUS image analysis of the pancreas: A descriptive quantitative review

Babu P Mohan  1 , Antonio Facciorusso  2 , Shahab R Khan  3 , Deepak Madhu  4 , Lena L Kassab  5 , Suresh Ponnada  6 , Saurabh Chandan  7 , Stefano F Crino  8 , Gursimran S Kochhar  9 , Douglas G Adler  1 , Michael B Wallace  10
Affiliations
Review

Pooled diagnostic parameters of artificial intelligence in EUS image analysis of the pancreas: A descriptive quantitative review

Babu P Mohan et al. Endosc Ultrasound. 2022 May-Jun.

Abstract

EUS is an important diagnostic tool in pancreatic lesions. Performance of single-center and/or single study artificial intelligence (AI) in the analysis of EUS-images of pancreatic lesions has been reported. The aim of this study was to quantitatively study the pooled rates of diagnostic performance of AI in EUS image analysis of pancreas using rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis methodology. Multiple databases were searched (from inception to December 2020) and studies that reported on the performance of AI in EUS analysis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma were selected. The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled rates. In cases where multiple 2 × 2 contingency tables were provided for different thresholds, we assumed the data tables as independent from each other. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2% and 95% prediction intervals. Eleven studies were analyzed. The pooled overall accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 86% (95% confidence interval [82.8-88.6]), 90.4% (88.1-92.3), 84% (79.3-87.8), 90.2% (87.4-92.3) and 89.8% (86-92.7), respectively. On subgroup analysis, the corresponding pooled parameters in studies that used neural networks were 85.5% (80-89.8), 91.8% (87.8-94.6), 84.6% (73-91.7), 87.4% (82-91.3), and 91.4% (83.7-95.6)], respectively. Based on our meta-analysis, AI seems to perform well in the EUS-image analysis of pancreatic lesions.

Keywords: artificial intelligence; endoscopic ultrasound; meta-analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study selection flow chart
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot, accuracy
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot, sensitivity
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot, specificity
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Iglesias-Garcia J, Lindkvist B, Lariño-Noia J, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography. Endosc Ultrasound. 2012;1:8–16. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Maguchi H. The roles of endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis of pancreatic tumors. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2004;11:1–3. - PubMed
    1. Iglesias-García J, Lariño-Noia J, Lindkvist B, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2015;107:221–8. - PubMed
    1. McGuigan A, Kelly P, Turkington RC, et al. Pancreatic cancer: A review of clinical diagnosis, epidemiology, treatment and outcomes. World J Gastroenterol. 2018;24:4846–61. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Carrara S, Di Leo M, Grizzi F, et al. EUS elastography (strain ratio) and fractal-based quantitative analysis for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87:1464–73. - PubMed