Minireviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Jul 16, 2025; 17(7): 108293
Published online Jul 16, 2025. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v17.i7.108293
Table 1 The summary table of the application progress of artificial intelligence in the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal diseases
Disease type
Application scenario
Research progress
Key indicators
Notes
BEAssisted diagnosis, targeted biopsiesConvolutional Neural Network for detecting dysplasia in BE: Sensitivity 91%, specificity 79%, AUC value 93%[6]Sensitivity: 91%-93.8%; specificity: 79%-90.7%; accuracy: 92.0%AI significantly improves the detection rate of BE, reducing missed and misdiagnosed cases
AI model for automatic identification and segmentation of BE extent: IoU values 0.56 and 0.82[7]
Multicenter real-time endoscopic video detection: Sensitivity 93.8%, specificity 90.7%, accuracy 92.0%[9]
Esophageal cancerEarly lesion detectionCAD system for detecting squamous cell carcinoma: Accuracy 92.9%, comparable to experts[12]Sensitivity: 93.8%; specificity: 91.73%; accuracy: 92.9%-94%AI shows excellent performance in early esophageal cancer detection
DL models: Accuracy 92.9%-94% in NBI mode, 92.9% in white-light mode[13]
AI-assisted system improves detection rates and reduces missed diagnoses[15]
GERDDisease classification, lesion segmentationDL model for LA grading: Accuracy 87.9%-95.7%[19,22]Accuracy: 87.9%-95.7%; IoU value: 0.9007AI performs well in GERD grading and lesion segmentation
XAI model for five-class classification: Accuracy 86.7%, higher than senior endoscopists[23]
Attention U-Net segmentation model: IoU value 09007[24]
Esophagogastric varicesReal-time diagnosis, bleeding risk predictionAI system for detecting esophagogastric varices: Accuracy 93.8%, comparable to endoscopists[33]Accuracy: 93.8%; sensitivity: 80% (bleeding risk prediction); specificity: 74.4%AI outperforms traditional methods in variceal diagnosis and risk prediction
DL model based on CT imaging for predicting variceal bleeding risk[34]