Review
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Gastroenterol. Jun 7, 2021; 27(21): 2681-2709
Published online Jun 7, 2021. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i21.2681
Table 4 Summary of existing studies of artificial neural networks applied in inflammatory bowel disease
Ref.
Disease
Aim
Number of samples
ANN technique
Included variables
Outcome
Ahmed et al[169], 2017CDDiagnosis144 CD patients; 243 HC individualsBPNN103 variablesAccuracy 97.67%; sensitivity 96.07%; specificity 100%
Ananthakrishnan et al[154], 2017UC and CDPredicting treatment response to vedolizumab43 UC patients; 42 CD patientsvedoNetGut microbiomeAUC of CD 88.1%; AUC of UC 85.3%
Anekboon et al[201], 2014CDPredicting single nucleotide polymorphisms144 CD patients; 243 HC individualsMulti-layer perceptron network103 SNPsAccuracy 90.4%; sensitivity 87.5%; specificity 92.2%
Dong et al[173], 2019CDPredicting the risk of surgical intervention in Chinese patients83 patients with surgery; 83 patients without surgeryANN131 variablesAccuracy 90.89%; precision 46.83%; F1 score 0.5757
Fioravanti et al[202], 2018IBDClassification of metagenomics data222 IBD patients; 38 HC individualsCNNGut microbiota-
Hardalaç et al[203], 2015IBDPredicting the effect of azathioprine on mucosal healing129 IBD patientsBPNNAge, age at diagnosis, usage of other medications prior to azathioprine use, smoking, sex, UC-CDAccuracy 79.1%
Kirchberger-Tolstik et al[170], 2020UCDiagnosis227 Raman maps with 567500 spectraCNNImages of Raman spectroscopysensitivity of 78%; specificity 93%
Klein et al[204], 2017CDPredicting the clinical phenotype47 B1 patients; 19 B2 patients; 39 B3 patientsTwo-layer FNNH&EB1 vs B2 phenotype: sensitivity 81%, specificity 74%, accuracy 75%, AUC 0.74; B1 vs B3 phenotype: sensitivity 69%, specificity 76%, accuracy 70.5%, AUC 0.78; B2 vs B3 phenotype: sensitivity 67%, specificity 72.5%, accuracy 69%, AUC 0.72
Lamash et al[71], 2019CDVisualization and quantitative estimation of CD23 pediatric CD patientsCNNMRIDSCs of 75 ± 18%, 81 ± 8%, and 97 ± 2% for the lumen, wall, and background, respectively
Le et al[174], 2020IBDPredicting IBD and treatment status68 CD patients; 53 UC patients; 34 HC individualsNeural encoder-decoder (NED) networkGut microbiotaCD vs HC: 95.2% AUC; UC vs HC: 92.5% AUC; CD vs UC: 81.8% AUC
Morilla et al[175], 2019UCPredicting treatment responses to infliximab for patients with acute severe UC47 patients with acute severe ulcerative colitisDeep neural networkMicroRNA profiles84% accuracy; 0.82 AUC
Ozawa et al[112], 2019UCIdentification of endoscopic inflammation severity841 patientsCNN (GoogLeNet)Colonoscopy images0.86 AUC of Mayo 0; 0.98 AUC of Mayo 0-1
Peng et al[205], 2015IBDPredicting the frequency of relapse569 UC patients; 332 CD patientsANNMeteorological dataHigh accuracy in predicting the frequency of relapse of IBD (MSE = 0.009, MAPE = 17.1 %)
Shepherd et al[171], 2014IBDDifferential diagnosis between IBD and IBS59 UC patients; 42 CD patients; 34 IBS patients; 46 HC individualsMulti-layer perceptron neural networkGas chromatograph coupled to a metal oxide sensor in stool samples76% sensitivity, 88% specificity, 76% accuracy
Takayama et al[132], 2015UCPredicting treatment response to cytoapheresis90 UC patientsMulti-layer perceptron neural network13 clinical variables96% sensitivity; 97% sensitivity
Tong et al[172], 2020CD, UC and ITBDifferential diagnosis between CD, UC and ITB5128 UC patients; 875 CD patients; ITB 396 patientsCNNDifferential features of endoscopic images between UC, CD and ITBThe precisions/recalls of UC-CD-ITB when employing the CNN were 0.99/0.97, 0.87/0.83, and 0.52/0.81, respectively