Suppr超能文献

多种计算机辅助息肉检测系统的直接比较。

Direct comparison of multiple computer-aided polyp detection systems.

机构信息

Interventional and Experimental Endoscopy (InExEn), Department of Internal Medicine II, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.

Bavarian Cancer Research Center, Würzburg, Germany.

出版信息

Endoscopy. 2024 Jan;56(1):63-69. doi: 10.1055/a-2147-0571. Epub 2023 Aug 2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems for computer-aided detection (CADe) of polyps receive regular updates and occasionally offer customizable detection thresholds, both of which impact their performance, but little is known about these effects. This study aimed to compare the performance of different CADe systems on the same benchmark dataset.

METHODS

101 colonoscopy videos were used as benchmark. Each video frame with a visible polyp was manually annotated with bounding boxes, resulting in 129 705 polyp images. The videos were then analyzed by three different CADe systems, representing five conditions: two versions of GI Genius, Endo-AID with detection Types A and B, and EndoMind, a freely available system. Evaluation included an analysis of sensitivity and false-positive rate, among other metrics.

RESULTS

Endo-AID detection Type A, the earlier version of GI Genius, and EndoMind detected all 93 polyps. Both the later version of GI Genius and Endo-AID Type B missed 1 polyp. The mean per-frame sensitivities were 50.63 % and 67.85 %, respectively, for the earlier and later versions of GI Genius, 65.60 % and 52.95 %, respectively, for Endo-AID Types A and B, and 60.22 % for EndoMind.

CONCLUSIONS

This study compares the performance of different CADe systems, different updates, and different configuration modes. This might help clinicians to select the most appropriate system for their specific needs.

摘要

背景和研究目的

基于人工智能(AI)的计算机辅助检测(CADe)系统会定期更新,并且偶尔会提供可定制的检测阈值,这两者都会影响它们的性能,但人们对这些影响知之甚少。本研究旨在比较同一基准数据集上不同 CADe 系统的性能。

方法

使用 101 个结肠镜视频作为基准。每个带有可见息肉的视频帧都用边界框进行手动注释,共生成 129705 个息肉图像。然后,使用三个不同的 CADe 系统对视频进行分析,代表五种情况:两种版本的 GI Genius、具有检测类型 A 和 B 的 Endo-AID,以及免费提供的 EndoMind。评估包括灵敏度和假阳性率等指标的分析。

结果

Endo-AID 检测类型 A、较早版本的 GI Genius 和 EndoMind 检测到了所有 93 个息肉。较新版本的 GI Genius 和 Endo-AID 类型 B 各漏掉了 1 个息肉。较早和较新版本的 GI Genius 的平均每帧灵敏度分别为 50.63%和 67.85%,Endo-AID 类型 A 和 B 的灵敏度分别为 65.60%和 52.95%,EndoMind 的灵敏度为 60.22%。

结论

本研究比较了不同 CADe 系统、不同更新和不同配置模式的性能。这可能有助于临床医生根据其特定需求选择最合适的系统。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/44c8/10736101/210f00115b57/10-1055-a-2147-0571-i22948en1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验