Metabolic syndrome (MS) is a condition that consists of several disorders, and the individual impact of these disorders on metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) is still not clear in a combined diagnosis of MS. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effect of MS on advanced fibrosis in patients with MAFLD.
Abstract Background Multi-layered convolutional neural networks are artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms that allow to process specific datasets. Endoscopic mayo score (EMS) is an endoscopic scoring tool for ulcerative colitis (UC) that is widely using for evaluating the disease activity to make a further treatment plan. EMS is an endoscopist-depended subjective tool that varies according to the physician’s experience. In this study, our aim was to create a high accuracy EMS diagnostic algorithm to minimize endoscopist-depended inconsistency and standardize the patient care. Methods We collected the endoscopic images of UC patients between December 2011 and July 2019 from electronic database of our gastroenterology institute. Images with insufficient bowel cleaning, artifact, retroflection images, terminal ileum images and pouch patients were excluded. Two blinded gastroenterologists evaluated and tagged the images according to the EMS. Images with a disagreement were excluded for a further evaluation. AI algorithm was performed with Python by using PyTorch library. The dataset was divided into two (85% was used for training and %15 was used for test). ResNet18 model was also used for training. Results A total of 19690 images of 572 patients from 1053 colonoscopies were identified for the study. The mean procedure number was 1.8 per patient and the mean image number was 18.7 for per colonoscopy. Four thousand and six hundred images without any disagreement between two gastroenterologists were included to the analysis. Two thousand eight hundred and thirteen (61.65%) images were tagged as EMS 0, 956 (20.66%) were tagged as EMS 1, 406 (8.77%) were tagged as EMS 2 and 413 (8.92%) were tagged as EMS 3. Accuracy was found 73.16% with a sensitivity of 773.2% and specifity of 92.9% in assessment of all EMS groups (Image 1). Also, the accuracy of severe mucosal disease diagnosis (EMS 0 and 1 vs EMS 2 and 3) was 96.3% with a sensitivity of 98.2% and specifity of 86.5% (Image 2) with a perfect reproductivity (к: 1.00). The performance of the remission diagnosis (EMS 0 vs EMS 1,2 and 3) was done with a 92% accuracy. Conclusion This is an ongoing study and the preliminary results of our EMS diagnosis algorithm was promising with a high accuracy. The accuracy and sensitivity would be improved by including more images and improving the algorithm. The use of AI in daily IBD practice can eliminate the subjectivity according to the endoscopist in diagnosis and assessing the disease severity for treatment decision.
Abstract Background Patients with chronic gastrointestinal (GI) disease such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), celiac disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), pancreatitis, and chronic liver disease (CLD) often suffer from obesity because of coincidence (IBD, IBS, celiac disease) or related pathophysiology (GERD, pancreatitis and CLD). It is unclear if such patients need a particular diagnostic and treatment that differs from the needs of lean GI patients. The present guideline addresses this question according to current knowledge and evidence. Objective The objective of the guideline is to give advice to all professionals working in the field of gastroenterology care including physicians, surgeons, dietitians and others how to handle patients with GI disease and obesity. Methods The present guideline was developed according to the standard operating procedure for European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism guidelines, following the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network grading system (A, B, 0, and good practice point [GPP]). The procedure included an online voting (Delphi) and a final consensus conference. Results In 100 recommendations (3x A, 33x B, 24x 0, 40x GPP, all with a consensus grade of 90% or more) care of GI patients with obesity – including sarcopenic obesity – is addressed in a multidisciplinary way. A particular emphasis is on CLD, especially fatty liver disease, since such diseases are closely related to obesity, whereas liver cirrhosis is rather associated with sarcopenic obesity. A special chapter is dedicated to obesity care in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. The guideline focuses on adults, not on children, for whom data are scarce. Whether some of the recommendations apply to children must be left to the judgment of the experienced pediatrician. Conclusion The present guideline offers for the first time evidence‐based advice how to care for patients with chronic GI diseases and concomitant obesity, an increasingly frequent constellation in clinical practice.
The optimal sampling techniques for EUS-FNA remain unclear and have not been standardized. To improve diagnostic accuracy, suction techniques for EUS-FNA have been developed and are widely used among endoscopists. The aim of this study was to compare wet-suction and dry-suction EUS-FNA techniques for sampling solid lesions. We performed a comprehensive literature search of major databases (from inception to June 2020) to identify prospective studies comparing wet-suction EUS-FNA and dry-suction EUS-FNA. Specimen adequacy, sample contamination, and histologic accuracy were assessed by pooling data using a random-effects model expressed in terms of odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Six studies including a total of 418 patients (365 wet suction vs. 377 dry suction) were included in our final analysis. The study included a total of 535 lesions (332 pancreatic lesions and 203 nonpancreatic lesions). The pooled odds of sample adequacy was 3.18 (CI: 1.82–5.54, P = 0.001) comparing wet- and dry-suction cohorts. The pooled odds of blood contamination was 1.18 (CI: 0.75–1.86, P = 0.1). The pooled rate for blood contamination was 58.33% (CI: 53.65%–62.90%) in the wet-suction cohort and 54.60% (CI 49.90%– 59.24%) in the dry-suction cohort (P = 0.256). The pooled odds of histological diagnosis was 3.68 (CI 0.82–16.42, P = 0.1). Very few adverse events were observed and did not have an impact on patient outcomes using either method. EUS-FNA using the wet-suction technique offers higher specimen quality through comparable rates of blood contamination and histological accuracy compared to dry-suction EUS-FNA.