Copyright
©2013 Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited. All rights reserved.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Jul 16, 2013; 5(7): 313-322
Published online Jul 16, 2013. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v5.i7.313
Published online Jul 16, 2013. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v5.i7.313
Implementation of a polling protocol for predicting celiac disease in videocapsule analysis
Edward J Ciaccio, Christina A Tennyson, Govind Bhagat, Suzanne K Lewis, Peter H Green, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY 10032, United States
Govind Bhagat, Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY 10032, United States
Author contributions: Ciaccio EJ, Tennyson CA, Bhagat G, Lewis SK and Green PH designed research; Ciaccio EJ, Tennyson CA, Bhagat G and Green PH performed research; Ciaccio EJ contributed new reagents or analytic tools; Ciaccio EJ, Tennyson CA, Bhagat G and Green PH analyzed data; Ciaccio EJ and Green PH wrote the paper.
Supported by (In part) a grant from the Celiac Sprue Association Peer Review Research Grant Program
Correspondence to: Edward J Ciaccio, PhD, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, Harkness Pavilion 934, 180 Fort Washington Avenue, New York, NY 10032, United States. ciaccio@columbia.edu
Telephone: +1-212-3055447 Fax: +1-212-3420447
Received: March 22, 2013
Revised: May 7, 2013
Accepted: June 19, 2013
Published online: July 16, 2013
Revised: May 7, 2013
Accepted: June 19, 2013
Published online: July 16, 2013
Core Tip
Core tip: Videocapsule endoscopy images from celiac disease patients and controls were extracted from video clips and compared using image processing. The image processor consists of 24 automated measurements, or automata. The values of these automata were polled for yes or no vote, which depended on a predetermined threshold value set for each measurement. The polling process predicted whether the patient had celiac disease, based on majority vote from the 24 automata. Celiac patients with even subtle villous atrophy were distinguished from controls by this method. For 16 patients, the overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the method was 83.9%, 92.9%, and 88.1%, respectively.