Abstract
Aim to evaluate validity of digital quantification when compared with human fast-scoring in routine classification of chronic gastric wall inflammation.
Method 87 bariatric gastric samples coming from asymptomatic severe obese patients were examined and classified as normal, with unspecified chronic gastritis and lymphocytic gastritis using a fast-scoring, visual analogue scale method. Results were compared with digital diagnostic data (manual segmentation, supervised learning analysis based on intraepithelial lymphocytes count criteria). Discordant results were re-evaluated by the human pathologist by direct count (ground truth). Helicobacter Pylori diagnostic was performed in all cases (Giemsa).
Results Digital analysis classified chronic inflammation as lymphocytic gastritis in 45 cases (mean 53 lymphocytes / 100 epithelial gastric cells ±18). 30 cases were labeled as unspecific chronic gastritis (mean 25/100±2.8) (p<0.0001). Human fast-scoring classified 43 cases as lymphocytic gastritis and 20 as unspecific gastritis. Helicobacter Pylori was detected in 49% of lymphocytic gastritis cases and in 7% of chronic gastritis. 47 diagnostics were concordant (54%). In 36%, digital score was better than human fast-scoring. In 7%, digital results were false negative (all cases generated by technical artifacts). Overall, digital quantification had 89% accuracy and 96% precision when compared with ground truth.
Conclusion In our study, digital image analysis produced a fast and reproducible classification of chronic gastric inflammation with good precision and accuracy. Technical errors generated 6 cases of false negative results. Several other limitations of the study (use of only bariatric gastric fundus tissue, low number of cases, manual supervised learning segmentation) ask for an increased number of cases evaluation before validation and clinical use.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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
Data Availability
raw data is publicly available at https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/j3hpsvbgrb/draft?a=555a000b-7973-4a23-a47e-3dd2f58401ce
https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/j3hpsvbgrb/draft?a=555a000b-7973-4a23-a47e-3dd2f58401ce