Evidence Hub

Development and Validation of a Machine Learning System to Identify Reflux Events in Esophageal 24-Hour pH/Impedance Studies

Margaret J. Zhou, Thomas A. Zikos, Karan Goel, Kabir Goel, Albert Gu, Christopher Ré, David Jose Florez Rodriguez, John O. Clarke et al.

Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology, 2023

45 participants · 10 citations

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Esophageal 24-hour pH/impedance testing is routinely performed to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux disease. Interpretation of these studies is time-intensive for expert physicians and has high inter-reader variability. There are no commercially available machine learning tools to assist with automated identification of reflux events in these studies. METHODS: A machine learning system to identify reflux events in 24-hour pH/impedance studies was developed, which included an initial signal processing step and a machine learning model. Gold-standard reflux events were defined by a group of expert physicians. Performance metrics were computed to compare the machine learning system, current automated detection software (Reflux Reader v6.1), and an expert physician reader. RESULTS: The study cohort included 45 patients (20/5/20 patients in the training/validation/test sets, respectively). The mean age was 51 (standard deviation 14.5) years, 47% of patients were male, and 78% of studies were performed off proton-pump inhibitor. Comparing the machine learning system vs current automated software vs expert physician reader, area under the curve was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85–0.89) vs 0.40 (95% CI 0.37–0.42) vs 0.83 (95% CI 0.81–0.86), respectively; sensitivity was 68.7% vs 61.1% vs 79.4%, respectively; and specificity was 80.8% vs 18.6% vs 87.3%, respectively. DISCUSSION: We trained and validated a novel machine learning system to successfully identify…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 45 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free