Abstract
Aims Deep learning (DL), a sub-area of artificial intelligence, has demonstrated great promise at automating diagnostic tasks in pathology, yet its translation into clinical settings has been slow. Few studies have examined its impact on pathologist performance, when embedded into clinical workflows. The identification of H. pylori on H&E stain is a tedious, imprecise task which might benefit from DL assistance. Here, we developed a DL assistant for diagnosing H. pylori in gastric biopsies and tested its impact on pathologist diagnostic accuracy and turnaround time.
Methods and results H&E-stained whole-slide images (WSI) of 303 gastric biopsies with ground truth confirmation by immunohistochemistry formed the study dataset; 47 and 126 WSI were respectively used to train and optimize our DL assistant to detect H. pylori, and 130 were used in a clinical experiment in which 3 experienced GI pathologists reviewed the same test set with and without assistance. On the test set, the assistant achieved high performance, with a WSI-level area-under-the-receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.965 (95% CI 0.934–0.987). On H. pylori-positive cases, assisted diagnoses were faster (
, the fixed effect size for assistance = –0.557, p = 0.003) and much more accurate (OR = 13.37, p< 0.001) than unassisted diagnoses. However, assistance increased diagnostic uncertainty on H. pylori- negative cases, resulting in an overall decrease in assisted accuracy (OR = 0.435, p = 0.016) and negligible impact on overall turnaround time (
for assistance = 0.010, p = 0.860).
Conclusions DL can assist pathologists with H. pylori diagnosis, but its integration into clinical workflows requires optimization to mitigate diagnostic uncertainty as a potential consequence of assistance.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funded was received for the work reported in this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Stanford University IRB provided waived informed consent for this study.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Data Availability
The whole-slide images used in the study are not currently publicly available, in accordance with institutional requirements governing human subject privacy protections.
