方法

五名专家和实习内镜医师比较了从63名短节段巴雷特食管患者的白光、LCI和BLI图像。医师对可见性的评估如下：5（提高）、4（稍提高）、3（等效）、2（稍降低）、1（降低）。可见性用分数评估。同时还评价图像评估的评分者和评分者之间的可靠性（组内相关系数）。基于 CIELAB 色彩空间系统中的 L* a* b* 颜色值和色差 (ΔE*) 客观地评估图像。

Methods:Five expert and trainee endoscopists compared WLI, LCI, and BLI images obtained from 63 patients with short-segment BE. Physicians assessed visibility as follows: 5 (improved), 4 (somewhat improved), 3 (equivalent), 2 (somewhat decreased), and one (decreased). Scores were evaluated to assess visibility. The inter- and intra-rater reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient) of image assessments were also evaluated. Images were objectively evaluated based on L* a* b* color values and color differences (ΔE*) in a CIELAB color space system. 

结果

跟白光相比，所有医师的LCI可见性提高：44%，BLI：0%；实习医生为LCI：55.6%，BLI：1.6%；专家为LCI：47.6%，BLI：0%。实习医生的LCI可见性得分明显高于专家（p=0.02）。跟白光比，LCI的评分者内和评分者间可靠性等级对于实习医生是“中等”，对于专家来说是“中-高”。ΔE*揭示了白光和LCI之间显著的统计学差异。

Results:Improved visibility compared with WLI was achieved for LCI: 44.4%, BLI: 0% for all endoscopists; LCI: 55.6%, BLI: 1.6% for trainees; and LCI: 47.6%, BLI: 0% for experts. The visibility score of trainees compared with experts was significantly higher for LCI (p = 0.02). Intra- and inter-rater reliability ratings for LCI compared with WLI were “moderate” for trainees, and “moderate-substantial” for experts. The ΔE* revealed statistically significant differences between WLI and LCI.