Detection of colorectal adenomas with a real-time computer-aided system (ENDOANGEL): a randomised controlled study

Computer-aided detection, mucosal exposure device, their combination, and standard colonoscopy for adenoma detection: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Computer-aided detection (CADe) and a mucosal exposure device can improve adenoma detection rate (ADR). Potential benefits of combining the 2 modalities have never been studied. This study aimed to compare ADR differences among CADe alone, endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) alone, and the combination of CADe and EAC (CADe+EAC) with standard colonoscopy.

METHODS

This prospective randomized controlled study included 1245 participants who underwent screening colonoscopy. Participants were randomized to CADe, EAC, CADe+EAC, and standard colonoscopy as a control. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were proximal ADR (pADR), advanced ADR (AADR), and the number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APCs).

RESULTS

ADRs from the control, CADe, EAC, and CADe+EAC groups were 41.9%, 52.2%, 54.0%, and 58.8%, respectively; pADRs were 25.2%, 33.3%, 34.9%, and 37.0%, respectively; AADRs were 7.7%, 8.3%, 8.3%, and 13.6%, respectively; and APCs were .76, 1.11, 1.18, and 1.31, respectively. Significant increases in ADR and pADR were observed between the intervention and control groups (P < .05 in all comparisons). The AADR was significantly higher only in the CADe+EAC group than in the control group (P = .02). The adjusted incidence rate ratios of APCs were significantly higher in the intervention groups versus the control group (P < .01 in all comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

CADe+EAC significantly improve ADR and AADR over standard colonoscopy. However, although CADe or EAC alone can substantially increase the detection of adenomas, they do not lead to increased detection of advanced adenomas unless used in combination. (Clinical trial registration number: TCTR20200929003.).

Usefulness of a novel computer-aided detection system for colorectal neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Artificial intelligence-based computer-aid detection (CADe) devices have been recently tested in colonoscopies, increasing the adenoma detection rate (ADR), mainly in Asian populations. However, evidence for the benefit of these devices in the occidental population is still low. We tested a new CADe device, namely, ENDO-AID (OIP-1) (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan), in clinical practice.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial included 370 consecutive patients who were randomized 1:1 to CADe (n = 185) versus standard exploration (n = 185) from November 2021 to January 2022. The primary endpoint was the ADR. Advanced adenoma was defined as ≥10 mm, harboring high-grade dysplasia, or with a villous pattern. Otherwise, the adenoma was nonadvanced. ADR was assessed in both groups stratified by endoscopist ADR and colon cleansing.

RESULTS

In the intention-to-treat analysis, the ADR was 55.1% (102/185) in the CADe group and 43.8% (81/185) in the control group (P = .029). Nonadvanced ADRs (54.8% vs 40.8%, P = .01) and flat ADRs (39.4 vs 24.8, P = .006), polyp detection rate (67.1% vs 51%; P = .004), and number of adenomas per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the CADe group than in the control group (median [25th-75th percentile], 1 [0-2] vs 0 [0-1.5], respectively; P = .014). No significant differences were found in serrated ADR. After stratification by endoscopist and bowel cleansing, no statistically significant differences in ADR were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy assisted by ENDO-AID (OIP-1) increases ADR and number of adenomas per colonoscopy, suggesting it may aid in the detection of colorectal neoplastic lesions, especially because of its detection of diminutive and flat adenomas. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04945044.).

[Reporting guidelines for clinical trial reports for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the CONSORT-AI extensionDiretrizes para relatórios de ensaios clínicos com intervenções que utilizam inteligência artificial: a extensão CONSORT-AI]

The CONSORT 2010 statement provides minimum guidelines for reporting randomized trials. Its widespread use has been instrumental in ensuring transparency in the evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate impact on health outcomes. The CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trials evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for clinical trial protocols: SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 29 candidate items, which were assessed by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a two-day consensus meeting (31 stakeholders) and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The CONSORT-AI extension includes 14 new items that were considered sufficiently important for AI interventions that they should be routinely reported in addition to the core CONSORT 2010 items. CONSORT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention is integrated, the handling of inputs and outputs of the AI intervention, the human-AI interaction and provision of an analysis of error cases. CONSORT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness in reporting clinical trials for AI interventions. It will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret and critically appraise the quality of clinical trial design and risk of bias in the reported outcomes.

The Impacts of Computer-Aided Detection of Colorectal Polyps on Subsequent Colonoscopy Surveillance Intervals: Simulation Study

BACKGROUND

Computer-aided detection (CADe) of colorectal polyps has been shown to increase adenoma detection rates, which would potentially shorten subsequent surveillance intervals.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to simulate the potential changes in subsequent colonoscopy surveillance intervals after the application of CADe in a large cohort of patients.

METHODS

We simulated the projected increase in polyp and adenoma detection by universal CADe application in our patients who had undergone colonoscopy with complete endoscopic and histological findings between 2016 and 2020. The simulation was based on bootstrapping the published performance of CADe. The corresponding changes in surveillance intervals for each patient, as recommended by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (USMSTF) or the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), were determined after the CADe was determined.

RESULTS

A total of 3735 patients who had undergone colonoscopy were included. Based on the simulated CADe effect, the application of CADe would result in 19.1% (n=714) and 1.9% (n=71) of patients having shorter surveillance intervals, according to the USMSTF and ESGE guidelines, respectively. In particular, all (or 2.7% (n=101) of the total) patients who were originally scheduled to have 3-5 years of surveillance would have their surveillance intervals shortened to 3 years, following the USMSTF guidelines. The changes in this group of patients were largely attributed to an increase in the number of adenomas (n=75, 74%) rather than serrated lesions being detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Widespread adoption of CADe would inevitably increase the demand for surveillance colonoscopies with the shortening of original surveillance intervals, particularly following the current USMSTF guideline.

Artificial intelligence in pancreatic cancer: diagnosis, limitations, and the future prospects-a narrative review

PURPOSE

This review aims to explore the role of AI in the application of pancreatic cancer management and make recommendations to minimize the impact of the limitations to provide further benefits from AI use in the future.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted using a combination of MeSH keywords, including "Artificial intelligence", "Pancreatic cancer", "Diagnosis", and "Limitations".

RESULTS

The beneficial implications of AI in the detection of biomarkers, diagnosis, and prognosis of pancreatic cancer have been explored. In addition, current drawbacks of AI use have been divided into subcategories encompassing statistical, training, and knowledge limitations; data handling, ethical and medicolegal aspects; and clinical integration and implementation.

CONCLUSION

Artificial intelligence (AI) refers to computational machine systems that accomplish a set of given tasks by imitating human intelligence in an exponential learning pattern. AI in gastrointestinal oncology has continued to provide significant advancements in the clinical, molecular, and radiological diagnosis and intervention techniques required to improve the prognosis of many gastrointestinal cancer types, particularly pancreatic cancer.

An Evaluation of Critical Factors for the Cost-Effectiveness of Real-Time Computer-Aided Detection: Sensitivity and Threshold Analyses Using a Microsimulation Model

BACKGROUND

The use of computer-aided detection (CAD) increases the adenoma detection rates (ADRs) during colorectal cancer (CRC) screening/surveillance. This study aimed to evaluate the requirements for CAD to be cost-effective and the impact of CAD on adenoma detection by endoscopists with different ADRs.

METHODS

We developed a semi-Markov microsimulation model to compare the effectiveness of traditional colonoscopy (mean ADR, 26%) to colonoscopy with CAD (mean ADR, 37%). CAD was modeled as having a $75 per-procedure cost. Extensive 1-way sensitivity and threshold analysis were performed to vary cost and ADR of CAD. Multiple scenarios evaluated the potential effect of CAD on endoscopists' ADRs. Outcome measures were reported in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year.

RESULTS

When modeling CAD improved ADR for all endoscopists, the CAD cohort had 79 and 34 fewer lifetime CRC cases and deaths, respectively, per 10,000 persons. This scenario was dominant with a cost savings of $143 and incremental effectiveness of 0.01 quality-adjusted life years. Threshold analysis demonstrated that CAD would be cost-effective up to an additional cost of $579 per colonoscopy, or if it increases ADR from 26% to at least 30%. CAD reduced CRC incidence and mortality when limited to improving ADRs for low-ADR endoscopists (ADR <25%), with 67 fewer CRC cases and 28 CRC deaths per 10,000 persons compared with traditional colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

As CAD is implemented clinically, it needs to improve mean ADR from 26% to at least 30% or cost less than $579 per colonoscopy to be cost-effective when compared with traditional colonoscopy. Further studies are needed to understand the impact of CAD on community practice.

Computer-assisted detection versus conventional colonoscopy for proximal colonic lesions: a multicenter, randomized, tandem-colonoscopy study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Computer-assisted detection (CADe) is a promising technologic advance that enhances adenoma detection during colonoscopy. However, the role of CADe in reducing missed colonic lesions is uncertain. The aim of this study was to determine the miss rates of proximal colonic lesions by CADe and conventional colonoscopy.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, tandem-colonoscopy study conducted in 3 Asian centers. Patients were randomized to receive CADe or conventional white-light colonoscopy during the first withdrawal of the proximal colon (cecum to splenic flexure), immediately followed by tandem examination of the proximal colon with white light in both groups. The primary outcome was adenoma/polyp miss rate, which was defined as any adenoma/polyp detected during the second examination.

RESULTS

Of 223 patients (48.6% men; median age, 63 years) enrolled, 7 patients did not have tandem examination, leaving 108 patients in each group. There was no difference in the miss rate for proximal adenomas (CADe vs conventional: 20.0% vs 14.0%, P = .07) and polyps (26.7% vs 19.6%, P = .06). The CADe group, however, had significantly higher proximal polyp (58.0% vs 46.7%, P = .03) and adenoma (44.7% vs 34.6%, P = .04) detection rates than the conventional group. The mean number of proximal polyps and adenomas detected per patient during the first examination was also significantly higher in the CADe group (polyp: 1.20 vs .86, P = .03; adenoma, .91 vs .61, P = .03). Subgroup analysis showed that CADe enhanced proximal adenoma detection in patients with fair bowel preparation, shorter withdrawal time, and endoscopists with lower adenoma detection rate.

CONCLUSIONS

This multicenter trial from Asia confirmed that CADe can further enhance proximal adenoma and polyp detection but may not be able to reduce the number of missed proximal colonic lesions. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04294355.).

Effect of computer-aided colonoscopy on adenoma miss rates and polyp detection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Multiple computer-aided techniques utilizing artificial intelligence (AI) have been created to improve the detection of polyps during colonoscopy and thereby reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer. While adenoma detection rates (ADR) and polyp detection rates (PDR) are important colonoscopy quality indicators, adenoma miss rates (AMR) may better quantify missed lesions, which can ultimately lead to interval colorectal cancer. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of computer-aided colonoscopy (CAC) with respect to AMR, ADR, and PDR in randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

A comprehensive, systematic literature search was performed across multiple databases in September of 2022 to identify randomized, controlled trials that compared CAC with traditional colonoscopy. Primary outcomes were AMR, ADR, and PDR.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies totaling 10 928 patients were included in the final analysis. There was a 65% reduction in the adenoma miss rate with CAC (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25-0.49, P < 0.001, I²  = 50%). There was a 78% reduction in the sessile serrated lesion miss rate with CAC (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.65, P < 0.01, I²  = 0%). There was a 52% increase in ADR in the CAC group compared with the control group (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.39-1.67, P = 0.04, I²  = 47%). There was 93% increase in the number of adenomas > 10 mm detected per colonoscopy with CAC (OR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.18-3.16, P < 0.01, I²  = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study demonstrate the promise of CAC in improving AMR, ADR, PDR across a spectrum of size and morphological lesion characteristics.

Comprehensive review of publicly available colonoscopic imaging databases for artificial intelligence research: availability, accessibility, and usability

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Publicly available databases containing colonoscopic imaging data are valuable resources for artificial intelligence (AI) research. Currently, little is known regarding the available number and content of these databases. This review aimed to describe the availability, accessibility, and usability of publicly available colonoscopic imaging databases, focusing on polyp detection, polyp characterization, and quality of colonoscopy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE and Embase to identify AI studies describing publicly available colonoscopic imaging databases published after 2010. Second, a targeted search using Google's Dataset Search, Google Search, GitHub, and Figshare was done to identify databases directly. Databases were included if they contained data about polyp detection, polyp characterization, or quality of colonoscopy. To assess accessibility of databases, the following categories were defined: open access, open access with barriers, and regulated access. To assess the potential usability of the included databases, essential details of each database were extracted using a checklist derived from the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging.

RESULTS

We identified 22 databases with open access, 3 databases with open access with barriers, and 15 databases with regulated access. The 22 open access databases contained 19,463 images and 952 videos. Nineteen of these databases focused on polyp detection, localization, and/or segmentation; 6 on polyp characterization, and 3 on quality of colonoscopy. Only half of these databases have been used by other researcher to develop, train, or benchmark their AI system. Although technical details were in general well reported, important details such as polyp and patient demographics and the annotation process were under-reported in almost all databases.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides greater insight on public availability of colonoscopic imaging databases for AI research. Incomplete reporting of important details limits the ability of researchers to assess the usability of current databases.

Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy improves polyp detection and characterization in colonoscopy. However, data from large-scale multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCT) in an asymptomatic population are lacking.

METHODS

This multicenter RCT aimed to compare AI-assisted colonoscopy with conventional colonoscopy for adenoma detection in an asymptomatic population. Asymptomatic subjects 45-75 years of age undergoing colorectal cancer screening by direct colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical test were recruited in 6 referral centers in Hong Kong, Jilin, Inner Mongolia, Xiamen, and Beijing. In the AI-assisted colonoscopy, an AI polyp detection system (Eagle-Eye) with real-time notification on the same monitor of the endoscopy system was used. The primary outcome was overall adenoma detection rate (ADR). Secondary outcomes were mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy, ADR according to endoscopist's experience, and colonoscopy withdrawal time. This study received Institutional Review Board approval (CRE-2019.393).

RESULTS

From November 2019 to August 2021, 3059 subjects were randomized to AI-assisted colonoscopy (n = 1519) and conventional colonoscopy (n = 1540). Baseline characteristics and bowel preparation quality between the 2 groups were similar. The overall ADR (39.9% vs 32.4%; P < .001), advanced ADR (6.6% vs 4.9%; P = .041), ADR of expert (42.3% vs 32.8%; P < .001) and nonexpert endoscopists (37.5% vs 32.1%; P = .023), and adenomas per colonoscopy (0.59 ± 0.97 vs 0.45 ± 0.81; P < .001) were all significantly higher in the AI-assisted colonoscopy. The median withdrawal time (8.3 minutes vs 7.8 minutes; P = .004) was slightly longer in the AI-assisted colonoscopy group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicenter RCT in asymptomatic patients, AI-assisted colonoscopy improved overall ADR, advanced ADR, and ADR of both expert and nonexpert attending endoscopists. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT04422548).

Variability in adenoma detection rate in control groups of randomized colonoscopy trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is still the main surrogate outcome parameter of screening colonoscopy, but most studies include mixed indications, and basic ADR is quite variable. We therefore looked at the control groups in randomized ADR trials using advanced imaging or mechanical methods to find out whether indications or other factors influence ADR levels.

METHODS

Patients in the control groups of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ADR increase using various methods were collected based on a systematic review; this control group had to use high-definition white-light endoscopy performed between 2008 and 2021. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool ADR in control groups and its 95% confidence interval (CI) according to clinical (indication and demographic), study setting (tandem/parallel, number of centers, sample size), and technical (type of intervention, withdrawal time) parameters. Interstudy heterogeneity was reported with the I² statistic. Multivariable mixed-effects meta-regression was performed for potentially relevant variables.

RESULTS

From 80 studies, 25,304 patients in the respective control groups were included. ADR in control arms varied between 8.2% and 68.1% with a high degree of heterogeneity (I² = 95.1%; random-effect pooled value, 37.5%; 95% CI, 34.6‒40.5). There was no difference in ADR levels between primary colonoscopy screening (12 RCTs, 15%) and mixed indications including screening/surveillance and diagnostic colonoscopy; however, fecal immunochemical testing as an indication for colonoscopy was an independent predictor of ADR (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.4). Other well-known parameters were confirmed by our analysis such as age (OR, 1.038; 95% CI, 1.004-1.074), sex (male sex: OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03), and withdrawal time (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1). The type of intervention (imaging vs mechanical) had no influence, but methodologic factors did: More recent year of publication and smaller sample size were associated with higher ADR.

CONCLUSIONS

A high level of variability was found in the level of ADR in the control groups of RCTs. With regards to indications, only fecal immunochemical test-based colonoscopy studies influenced basic ADR, and primary colonoscopy screening appeared to be similar to other indications. Standardization for variables related to clinical, methodologic, and technical parameters is required to achieve generalizability and reproducibility.

[Guidelines for clinical trial protocols for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the SPIRIT-AI extensionDiretrizes para protocolos de ensaios clínicos com intervenções que utilizam inteligência artificial: a extensão SPIRIT-AI]

The SPIRIT 2013 statement aims to improve the completeness of clinical trial protocol reporting by providing evidence-based recommendations for the minimum set of items to be addressed. This guidance has been instrumental in promoting transparent evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate their impact on health outcomes. The SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trial protocols evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for trial reports: CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 26 candidate items, which were consulted upon by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a consensus meeting (31 stakeholders) and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The SPIRIT-AI extension includes 15 new items that were considered sufficiently important for clinical trial protocols of AI interventions. These new items should be routinely reported in addition to the core SPIRIT 2013 items. SPIRIT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention will be integrated, considerations for the handling of input and output data, the human-AI interaction and analysis of error cases. SPIRIT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness for clinical trial protocols for AI interventions. Its use will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret and critically appraise the design and risk of bias for a planned clinical trial.

Role of artificial intelligence in risk prediction, prognostication, and therapy response assessment in colorectal cancer: current state and future directions

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a branch of computer science that utilizes optimization, probabilistic and statistical approaches to analyze and make predictions based on a vast amount of data. In recent years, AI has revolutionized the field of oncology and spearheaded novel approaches in the management of various cancers, including colorectal cancer (CRC). Notably, the applications of AI to diagnose, prognosticate, and predict response to therapy in CRC, is gaining traction and proving to be promising. There have also been several advancements in AI technologies to help predict metastases in CRC and in Computer-Aided Detection (CAD) Systems to improve miss rates for colorectal neoplasia. This article provides a comprehensive review of the role of AI in predicting risk, prognosis, and response to therapies among patients with CRC.

Artificial intelligence and inflammatory bowel disease: Where are we going?

Inflammatory bowel diseases, namely ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, are chronic and relapsing conditions that pose a growing burden on healthcare systems worldwide. Because of their complex and partly unknown etiology and pathogenesis, the management of ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease can prove challenging not only from a clinical point of view but also for resource optimization. Artificial intelligence, an umbrella term that encompasses any cognitive function developed by machines for learning or problem solving, and its subsets machine learning and deep learning are becoming ever more essential tools with a plethora of applications in most medical specialties. In this regard gastroenterology is no exception, and due to the importance of endoscopy and imaging numerous clinical studies have been gradually highlighting the relevant role that artificial intelligence has in inflammatory bowel diseases as well. The aim of this review was to summarize the most recent evidence on the use of artificial intelligence in inflammatory bowel diseases in various contexts such as diagnosis, follow-up, treatment, prognosis, cancer surveillance, data collection, and analysis. Moreover, insights into the potential further developments in this field and their effects on future clinical practice were discussed.

Intraprocedure Artificial Intelligence Alert System for Colonoscopy Examination

Colonoscopy is a valuable tool for preventing and reducing the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. Although several computer-aided colorectal polyp detection and diagnosis systems have been proposed for clinical application, many remain susceptible to interference problems, including low image clarity, unevenness, and low accuracy for the analysis of dynamic images; these drawbacks affect the robustness and practicality of these systems. This study proposed an intraprocedure alert system for colonoscopy examination developed on the basis of deep learning. The proposed system features blurred image detection, foreign body detection, and polyp detection modules facilitated by convolutional neural networks. The training and validation datasets included high-quality images and low-quality images, including blurred images and those containing folds, fecal matter, and opaque water. For the detection of blurred images and images containing folds, fecal matter, and opaque water, the accuracy rate was 96.2%. Furthermore, the study results indicated a per-polyp detection accuracy of 100% when the system was applied to video images. The recall rates for high-quality image frames and polyp image frames were 95.7% and 92%, respectively. The overall alert accuracy rate and the false-positive rate of low quality for video images obtained through per-frame analysis were 95.3% and 0.18%, respectively. The proposed system can be used to alert colonoscopists to the need to slow their procedural speed or to perform flush or lumen inflation in cases where the colonoscope is being moved too rapidly, where fecal residue is present in the intestinal tract, or where the colon has been inadequately distended.

Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Association Between Time of Day and Colonoscopy Quality

IMPORTANCE

Time of day was associated with a decline in adenoma detection during colonoscopy. Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are effective in improving the adenoma detection rate (ADR), but the performance of AI during different times of the day remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To validate whether the assistance of an AI system could overcome the time-related decline in ADR during colonoscopy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study is a secondary analysis of 2 prospective randomized controlled trials (RCT) from Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University. Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly assigned to either the AI-assisted group or unassisted group from June 18, 2019, to September 6, 2019, and July 1, 2020, to October 15, 2020. The ADR of early and late colonoscopy sessions per half day were compared before and after the intervention of the AI system. Data were analyzed from March to June 2022.

EXPOSURE

Conventional colonoscopy or AI-assisted colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Adenoma detection rate.

RESULTS

A total of 1780 patients (mean [SD] age, 48.61 [13.35] years, 837 [47.02%] women) were enrolled. A total of 1041 procedures (58.48%) were performed in early sessions, with 357 randomized into the unassisted group (34.29%) and 684 into the AI group (65.71%). A total of 739 procedures (41.52%) were performed in late sessions, with 263 randomized into the unassisted group (35.59%) and 476 into the AI group (64.41%). In the unassisted group, the ADR in early sessions was significantly higher compared with that of late sessions (13.73% vs 5.70%; P = .005; OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.31-4.47). After the intervention of the AI system, as expected, no statistically significant difference was found (22.95% vs 22.06%, P = .78; OR, 0.96; 95% CI; 0.71-1.29). Furthermore, the AI systems showed better assistance ability on ADR in late sessions compared with early sessions (odds ratio, 3.81; 95% CI, 2.10-6.91 vs 1.60; 95% CI, 1.10-2.34).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, AI systems showed higher assistance ability in late sessions per half day, which suggests the potential to maintain high quality and homogeneity of colonoscopies and further improve endoscopist performance in large screening programs and centers with high workloads.

Extent of use of artificial intelligence & machine learning protocols in cancer diagnosis: A scoping review

Background & objectives

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have shown promising results in cancer diagnosis in validation tests involving retrospective patient databases. This study was aimed to explore the extent of actual use of AI/ML protocols for diagnosing cancer in prospective settings.

Methods

PubMed was searched for studies reporting usage of AI/ML protocols for cancer diagnosis in prospective (clinical trial/real world) setting with the AI/ML diagnosis aiding clinical decision-making, from inception till May 17, 2021. Data pertaining to the cancer, patients and the AI/ML protocol were extracted. Comparison of AI/ML protocol diagnosis with human diagnosis was recorded. Through a post hoc analysis, data from studies describing validation of various AI/ML protocols were extracted.

Results

Only 18/960 initial hits (1.88%) utilized AI/ML protocols for diagnostic decision-making. Most protocols used artificial neural network and deep learning. AI/ML protocols were utilized for cancer screening, pre-operative diagnosis and staging and intra-operative diagnosis of surgical specimens. The reference standard for 17/18 studies was histology. AI/ML protocols were used to diagnose cancers of the colorectum, skin, uterine cervix, oral cavity, ovaries, prostate, lungs and brain. AI/ML protocols were found to improve human diagnosis, and had either similar or better performance than the human diagnosis, especially made by the less experienced clinician. Validation of AI/ML protocols was described by 223 studies of which only four studies were from India. Also there was a huge variation in the number of items used for validation.

Interpretation & conclusions

The findings of this review suggest that a meaningful translation from the validation of AI/ML protocols to their actual usage in cancer diagnosis is lacking. Development of regulatory framework specific for AI/ML usage in healthcare is essential.

Lynch syndrome: from detection to treatment

Lynch syndrome (LS) is an inherited cancer predisposition syndrome associated with high lifetime risk of developing tumours, most notably colorectal and endometrial. It arises in the context of pathogenic germline variants in one of the mismatch repair genes, that are necessary to maintain genomic stability. LS remains underdiagnosed in the population despite national recommendations for empirical testing in all new colorectal and endometrial cancer cases. There are now well-established colorectal cancer surveillance programmes, but the high rate of interval cancers identified, coupled with a paucity of high-quality evidence for extra-colonic cancer surveillance, means there is still much that can be achieved in diagnosis, risk-stratification and management. The widespread adoption of preventative pharmacological measures is on the horizon and there are exciting advances in the role of immunotherapy and anti-cancer vaccines for treatment of these highly immunogenic LS-associated tumours. In this review, we explore the current landscape and future perspectives for the identification, risk stratification and optimised management of LS with a focus on the gastrointestinal system. We highlight the current guidelines on diagnosis, surveillance, prevention and treatment and link molecular disease mechanisms to clinical practice recommendations.

An artificial intelligence difficulty scoring system for stone removal during ERCP: a prospective validation

BACKGROUND

A computer-assisted (CAD) system was developed to assess, score, and classify the technical difficulty of common bile duct (CBD) stone removal during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The efficacy of the CAD system was subsequently assessed through a multicenter, prospective, observational study.

METHOD

All patients who met the inclusion criteria were included. Based on cholangiogram images, the CAD system analyzed the level of difficulty of stone removal and classified it into "difficult" and "easy" groups. Subsequently, differences in clinical endpoints, including attempts at stone extraction, stone extraction time, total operation time, and stone clearance rates were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

173 patients with CBD stones from three hospitals were included in the study. The group classified as difficult by CAD had more extraction attempts (7.20 vs. 4.20, P < 0.001), more frequent machine lithotripsy (30.4 % vs. 7.1 %, P < 0.001), longer stone extraction time (16.59 vs. 7.69 minutes, P < 0.001), lower single-session stone clearance rate (73.9 % vs. 94.5 %, P < 0.001), and lower total stone clearance rate (89.1 % vs. 97.6 %, P = 0.019) compared with the group classified as easy by CAD.

CONCLUSION

The CAD system effectively assessed and classified the degree of technical difficulty in endoscopic stone extraction during ERCP. In addition, it automatically provided a quantitative evaluation of CBD and stones, which in turn could help endoscopists to apply suitable procedures and interventional methods to minimize the possible risks associated with endoscopic stone removal.

Evaluation of the competence of an artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy system in clinical practice: A post hoc analysis

Background

Artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy (AIAC) has been proposed and validated in recent years, but the effectiveness of clinic application remains unclear since it was only validated in some clinical trials rather than normal conditions. In addition, previous clinical trials were mostly concerned with colorectal polyp identification, while fewer studies are focusing on adenoma identification and polyps size measurement. In this study, we validated the effectiveness of AIAC in the clinical environment and further investigated its capacity for adenoma identification and polyps size measurement.

Methods

The information of 174 continued patients who went for coloscopy in Chongqing Rongchang District People's hospital with detected colon polyps was retrospectively collected, and their coloscopy images were divided into three validation datasets, polyps dataset, polyps/adenomas dataset (all containing narrow band image, NBI images), and polyp size measurement dataset (images with biopsy forceps and polyps) to assess the competence of the artificial intelligence system, and compare its diagnostic ability with endoscopists with different experiences.

Results

A total of 174 patients were included, and the sensitivity of the colorectal polyp recognition model was 99.40%, the accuracy of the colorectal adenoma diagnostic model was 93.06%, which was higher than that of endoscopists, and the mean absolute error of the polyp size measurement model was 0.62 mm and the mean relative error was 10.89%, which was lower than that of endoscopists.

Conclusion

Artificial intelligence-assisted model demonstrated higher competence compared with endoscopists and stable diagnosis ability in clinical use.

Artificial intelligence in gastroenterology: A narrative review

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a complex concept, broadly defined in medicine as the development of computer systems to perform tasks that require human intelligence. It has the capacity to revolutionize medicine by increasing efficiency, expediting data and image analysis and identifying patterns, trends and associations in large datasets. Within gastroenterology, recent research efforts have focused on using AI in esophagogastroduodenoscopy, wireless capsule endoscopy (WCE) and colonoscopy to assist in diagnosis, disease monitoring, lesion detection and therapeutic intervention. The main objective of this narrative review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the research being performed within gastroenterology on AI in esophagogastroduodenoscopy, WCE and colonoscopy.

Mucosal imaging in colon polyps: New advances and what the future may hold

An expanding range of advanced mucosal imaging technologies have been developed with the goal of improving the detection and characterization of lesions in the gastrointestinal tract. Many technologies have targeted colorectal neoplasia given the potential for intervention prior to the development of invasive cancer in the setting of widespread surveillance programs. Improvement in adenoma detection reduces miss rates and prevents interval cancer development. Advanced imaging technologies aim to enhance detection without significantly increasing procedural time. Accurate polyp characterisation guides resection techniques for larger polyps, as well as providing the platform for the “resect and discard” and “do not resect” strategies for small and diminutive polyps. This review aims to collate and summarise the evidence regarding these technologies to guide colonoscopic practice in both interventional and non-interventional endoscopists.

An interpretable artificial intelligence system for detecting risk factors of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding

Bleeding risk factors for gastroesophageal varices (GEV) detected by endoscopy in cirrhotic patients determine the prophylactical treatment patients will undergo in the following 2 years. We propose a methodology for measuring the risk factors. We create an artificial intelligence system (ENDOANGEL-GEV) containing six models to segment GEV and to classify the grades (grades 1-3) and red color signs (RC, RC0-RC3) of varices. It also summarizes changes in the above results with region in real time. ENDOANGEL-GEV is trained using 6034 images from 1156 cirrhotic patients across three hospitals (dataset 1) and validated on multicenter datasets with 11009 images from 141 videos (dataset 2) and in a prospective study recruiting 161 cirrhotic patients from Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University (dataset 3). In dataset 1, ENDOANGEL-GEV achieves intersection over union values of 0.8087 for segmenting esophageal varices and 0.8141 for gastric varices. In dataset 2, the system maintains fairly accuracy across images from three hospitals. In dataset 3, ENDOANGEL-GEV surpasses attended endoscopists in detecting RC of GEV and classifying grades (p < 0.001). When ranking the risk of patients combined with the Child‒Pugh score, ENDOANGEL-GEV outperforms endoscopists for esophageal varices (p < 0.001) and shows comparable performance for gastric varices (p = 0.152). Compared with endoscopists, ENDOANGEL-GEV may help 12.31% (16/130) more patients receive the right intervention. We establish an interpretable system for the endoscopic diagnosis and risk stratification of GEV. It will assist in detecting the first bleeding risk factors accurately and expanding the scope of quantitative measurement of diseases.

Expected value of artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement

This ESGE Position Statement defines the expected value of artificial intelligence (AI) for the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal neoplasia within the framework of the performance measures already defined by ESGE. This is based on the clinical relevance of the expected task and the preliminary evidence regarding artificial intelligence in artificial or clinical settings. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS:: (1) For acceptance of AI in assessment of completeness of upper GI endoscopy, the adequate level of mucosal inspection with AI should be comparable to that assessed by experienced endoscopists. (2) For acceptance of AI in assessment of completeness of upper GI endoscopy, automated recognition and photodocumentation of relevant anatomical landmarks should be obtained in ≥90% of the procedures. (3) For acceptance of AI in the detection of Barrett's high grade intraepithelial neoplasia or cancer, the AI-assisted detection rate for suspicious lesions for targeted biopsies should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists with or without advanced imaging techniques. (4) For acceptance of AI in the management of Barrett's neoplasia, AI-assisted selection of lesions amenable to endoscopic resection should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists. (5) For acceptance of AI in the diagnosis of gastric precancerous conditions, AI-assisted diagnosis of atrophy and intestinal metaplasia should be comparable to that provided by the established biopsy protocol, including the estimation of extent, and consequent allocation to the correct endoscopic surveillance interval. (6) For acceptance of artificial intelligence for automated lesion detection in small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), the performance of AI-assisted reading should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists for lesion detection, without increasing but possibly reducing the reading time of the operator. (7) For acceptance of AI in the detection of colorectal polyps, the AI-assisted adenoma detection rate should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists. (8) For acceptance of AI optical diagnosis (computer-aided diagnosis [CADx]) of diminutive polyps (≤5 mm), AI-assisted characterization should match performance standards for implementing resect-and-discard and diagnose-and-leave strategies. (9) For acceptance of AI in the management of polyps ≥ 6 mm, AI-assisted characterization should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists in selecting lesions amenable to endoscopic resection.

Reduced Adenoma Miss Rate With 9-Minute vs 6-Minute Withdrawal Times for Screening Colonoscopy: A Multicenter Randomized Tandem Trial

INTRODUCTION

Although the 9-minute mean withdrawal time (m-WT) is often reported to be associated with the optimal adenoma detection rate (ADR), no randomized trials of screening colonoscopy have confirmed the impact of a 9-minute m-WT on adenoma miss rate (AMR) and ADR.

METHODS

A multicenter tandem trial was conducted in 11 centers. Seven hundred thirty-three asymptomatic participants were randomized to receive segmental tandem screening colonoscopy with a 9-minute withdrawal, followed by a 6-minute withdrawal (9-minute-first group, 9MF, n = 366) or vice versa (6-minute-first group, 6MF, n = 367). The primary outcome was the lesion-level AMR.

RESULTS

The intention-to-treat analysis revealed that 9MF significantly reduced the lesion-level (14.5% vs 36.6%, P < 0.001) and participant-level AMR (10.9% vs 25.9%, P < 0.001), advanced adenoma miss rate (AAMR, 5.3% vs 46.9%, P = 0.002), multiple adenomas miss rate (20.7% vs 56.5%, P = 0.01), and high-risk adenomas miss rate (14.6% vs 39.5%, P = 0.01) of 6MF without compromising detection efficiency ( P = 0.79). In addition, a lower false-negative rate for adenomas ( P = 0.002) and high-risk adenomas ( P < 0.05), and a lower rate of shortening surveillance schedule ( P < 0.001) were also found in 9MF, accompanying with an improved ADR in the 9-minute vs 6-minute m-WT (42.3% vs 33.5%, P = 0.02). The independent inverse association between m-WT and AMR remained significant even after adjusting ADR, and meanwhile, 9-minute m-WT was identified as an independent protector for AMR and AAMR.

DISCUSSION

In addition to increasing ADR, 9-minute m-WT also significantly reduces the AMR and AAMR of screening colonoscopy without compromising detection efficiency.

Randomised controlled trials in medical AI: ethical considerations

In recent years, there has been a surge of high-profile publications on applications of artificial intelligence (AI) systems for medical diagnosis and prognosis. While AI provides various opportunities for medical practice, there is an emerging consensus that the existing studies show considerable deficits and are unable to establish the clinical benefit of AI systems. Hence, the view that the clinical benefit of AI systems needs to be studied in clinical trials-particularly randomised controlled trials (RCTs)-is gaining ground. However, an issue that has been overlooked so far in the debate is that, compared with drug RCTs, AI RCTs require methodological adjustments, which entail ethical challenges. This paper sets out to develop a systematic account of the ethics of AI RCTs by focusing on the moral principles of clinical equipoise, informed consent and fairness. This way, the objective is to animate further debate on the (research) ethics of medical AI.

Evaluating the effect of an artificial intelligence system on the anesthesia quality control during gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Sedative gastrointestinal endoscopy is extensively used worldwide. An appropriate degree of sedation leads to more acceptability and satisfaction. Artificial intelligence has rapidly developed in the field of digestive endoscopy in recent years and we have constructed a mature computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system. This system can identify the remaining parts to be examined in real-time endoscopic procedures, which may help anesthetists use anesthetics properly to keep patients in an appropriate degree of sedation.

Aims

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the CAD system on anesthesia quality control during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Methods

We recruited 154 consecutive patients at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, including 76 patients in the CAD group and 78 in the control group. Anesthetists in the CAD group were able to see the CAD system’s indications, while anesthetists in the control group could not. The primary outcomes included emergence time (from examination completion to spontaneous eye opening when doctors called the patients’ names), recovery time (from examination completion to achievement of the primary recovery endpoints) and patient satisfaction scores. The secondary outcomes included anesthesia induction time (from sedative administration to successful sedation), procedure time (from scope insertion to scope withdrawal), total dose of propofol, vital signs, etc. This trial was registered in the Primary Registries of the WHO Registry Network, with registration number ChiCTR2100042621.

Results

Emergence time in the CAD group was significantly shorter than that in the control group (p < 0.01). The recovery time was also significantly shorter in the CAD group (p < 0.01). Patients in the CAD group were significantly more satisfied with their sedation than those in control group (p < 0.01). Vital signs were stable during the examinations in both groups. Propofol doses during the examinations were comparable between the two groups.

Conclusion

This CAD system possesses great potential for anesthesia quality control. It can improve patient satisfaction during endoscopic examinations with sedation.

Trial registration

ChiCTR2100042621.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-022-01796-1.

Artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal endoscopy - Evolution to a new era

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems based on machine learning have evolved in the last few years with an increasing applicability in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Thanks to AI, an image (input) can be transformed into a clinical decision (output). Although AI systems have been initially studied to improve detection (CADe) and characterization of colorectal lesions (CADx), other indications are being currently investigated as detection of blind spots, scope guidance, or delineation/measurement of lesions. The objective of these review is to summarize the current evidence on applicability of AI systems in gastrointestinal endoscopy, highlight strengths and limitations of the technology and review regulatory and ethical aspects for its general implementation in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Artificial intelligence-based assessments of colonoscopic withdrawal technique: a new method for measuring and enhancing the quality of fold examination

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI)-based system for measuring fold examination quality (FEQ) of colonoscopic withdrawal technique. We also examined the relationship between the system's evaluation of FEQ and FEQ scores from experts, and adenoma detection rate (ADR) and withdrawal time of colonoscopists, and evaluated the system's ability to improve FEQ during colonoscopy.

METHODS

First, we developed an AI-based system for measuring FEQ. Next, 103 consecutive colonoscopies performed by 11 colonoscopists were collected for evaluation. Three experts graded FEQ of each colonoscopy, after which the recorded colonoscopies were evaluated by the system. We further assessed the system by correlating its evaluation of FEQ against expert scoring, historical ADR, and withdrawal time of each colonoscopist. We also conducted a prospective observational study to evaluate the system's performance in enhancing fold examination.

RESULTS

The system's evaluations of FEQ of each endoscopist were significantly correlated with experts' scores (r = 0.871, P < 0.001), historical ADR (r = 0.852, P = 0.001), and withdrawal time (r = 0.727, P = 0.01). For colonoscopies performed by colonoscopists with previously low ADRs (< 25 %), AI assistance significantly improved the FEQ, evaluated by both the AI system (0.29 [interquartile range (IQR) 0.27-0.30] vs. 0.23 [0.17-0.26]) and experts (14.00 [14.00-15.00] vs. 11.67 [10.00-13.33]) (both P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The system's evaluation of FEQ was strongly correlated with FEQ scores from experts, historical ADR, and withdrawal time of each colonoscopist. The system has the potential to enhance FEQ.

Randomized Clinical Trials of Machine Learning Interventions in Health Care: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Despite the potential of machine learning to improve multiple aspects of patient care, barriers to clinical adoption remain. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are often a prerequisite to large-scale clinical adoption of an intervention, and important questions remain regarding how machine learning interventions are being incorporated into clinical trials in health care.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically examine the design, reporting standards, risk of bias, and inclusivity of RCTs for medical machine learning interventions.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

In this systematic review, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection online databases were searched and citation chasing was done to find relevant articles published from the inception of each database to October 15, 2021. Search terms for machine learning, clinical decision-making, and RCTs were used. Exclusion criteria included implementation of a non-RCT design, absence of original data, and evaluation of nonclinical interventions. Data were extracted from published articles. Trial characteristics, including primary intervention, demographics, adherence to the CONSORT-AI reporting guideline, and Cochrane risk of bias were analyzed.

FINDINGS

Literature search yielded 19 737 articles, of which 41 RCTs involved a median of 294 participants (range, 17-2488 participants). A total of 16 RCTS (39%) were published in 2021, 21 (51%) were conducted at single sites, and 15 (37%) involved endoscopy. No trials adhered to all CONSORT-AI standards. Common reasons for nonadherence were not assessing poor-quality or unavailable input data (38 trials [93%]), not analyzing performance errors (38 [93%]), and not including a statement regarding code or algorithm availability (37 [90%]). Overall risk of bias was high in 7 trials (17%). Of 11 trials (27%) that reported race and ethnicity data, the median proportion of participants from underrepresented minority groups was 21% (range, 0%-51%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This systematic review found that despite the large number of medical machine learning-based algorithms in development, few RCTs for these technologies have been conducted. Among published RCTs, there was high variability in adherence to reporting standards and risk of bias and a lack of participants from underrepresented minority groups. These findings merit attention and should be considered in future RCT design and reporting.

Randomized Controlled Trials of Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Practice: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The number of artificial intelligence (AI) studies in medicine has exponentially increased recently. However, there is no clear quantification of the clinical benefits of implementing AI-assisted tools in patient care.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to systematically review all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AI-assisted tools to characterize their performance in clinical practice.

METHODS

CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed were searched to identify relevant RCTs published up to July 2021 and comparing the performance of AI-assisted tools with conventional clinical management without AI assistance. We evaluated the primary end points of each study to determine their clinical relevance. This systematic review was conducted following the updated PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines.

RESULTS

Among the 11,839 articles retrieved, only 39 (0.33%) RCTs were included. These RCTs were conducted in an approximately equal distribution from North America, Europe, and Asia. AI-assisted tools were implemented in 13 different clinical specialties. Most RCTs were published in the field of gastroenterology, with 15 studies on AI-assisted endoscopy. Most RCTs studied biosignal-based AI-assisted tools, and a minority of RCTs studied AI-assisted tools drawn from clinical data. In 77% (30/39) of the RCTs, AI-assisted interventions outperformed usual clinical care, and clinically relevant outcomes improved with AI-assisted intervention in 70% (21/30) of the studies. Small sample size and single-center design limited the generalizability of these studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There is growing evidence supporting the implementation of AI-assisted tools in daily clinical practice; however, the number of available RCTs is limited and heterogeneous. More RCTs of AI-assisted tools integrated into clinical practice are needed to advance the role of AI in medicine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021286539; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=286539.

Effect of an artificial intelligence-based quality improvement system on efficacy of a computer-aided detection system in colonoscopy: a four-group parallel study

BACKGROUND

Tandem colonoscopy studies have found that about one in five adenomas are missed at colonoscopy. It remains debatable whether the combination of a computer-aided polyp detection (CADe) system with a computer-aided quality improvement (CAQ) system for real-time monitoring of withdrawal speed results in additional benefits in adenoma detection or if the synergetic effect may be harmed due to excessive visual burden resulting from information overload. This study aimed to evaluate the interaction effect on improving the adenoma detection rate (ADR).

METHODS

This single-center, randomized, four-group, parallel, controlled study was performed at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University. Between 1 July and 15 October 2020, 1076 patients were randomly allocated into four treatment groups: control 271, CADe 268, CAQ 269, and CADe plus CAQ (COMBO) 268. The primary outcome was ADR.

RESULTS

The ADR in the control, CADe, CAQ, and COMBO groups was 14.76 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 10.54 to 18.98), 21.27 % (95 %CI 16.37 to 26.17), 24.54 % (95 %CI 19.39 to 29.68), and 30.60 % (95 %CI 25.08 to 36.11), respectively. The ADR was higher in the COMBO group compared with the CADe group (21.27 % vs. 30.6 %, P = 0.024, odds ratio [OR] 1.284, 95 %CI 1.033 to 1.596) but not compared with the CAQ group (24.54 % vs. 30.6 %, P = 0.213, OR 1.309, 95 %CI 0.857 to 2.000, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

CAQ significantly improved the efficacy of CADe in a four-group, parallel, controlled study. No significant difference in the ADR or polyp detection rate was found between CAQ and COMBO.

Artificial Intelligence for Colonoscopy: Past, Present, and Future

During the past decades, many automated image analysis methods have been developed for colonoscopy. Real-time implementation of the most promising methods during colonoscopy has been tested in clinical trials, including several recent multi-center studies. All trials have shown results that may contribute to prevention of colorectal cancer. We summarize the past and present development of colonoscopy video analysis methods, focusing on two categories of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies used in clinical trials. These are (1) analysis and feedback for improving colonoscopy quality and (2) detection of abnormalities. Our survey includes methods that use traditional machine learning algorithms on carefully designed hand-crafted features as well as recent deep-learning methods. Lastly, we present the gap between current state-of-the-art technology and desirable clinical features and conclude with future directions of endoscopic AI technology development that will bridge the current gap.

Artificial intelligence implementation in pancreaticobiliary endoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Artificial intelligence has been rapidly deployed in gastroenterology and endoscopy. The acceleration of deep convolutional neural networks along with hardware development has allowed implementation of artificial intelligence algorithms into real-time endoscopy, particularly colonoscopy. However, artificial intelligence implementation in pancreaticobiliary endoscopy is nascent.

AREAS COVERED

Initial studies have been conducted in endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERCP), endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and digital single operator cholangioscopy (DSOC). Machine learning has been implemented in identifying significant landmarks, including the ampulla on ERCP, and the bile duct, pancreas, and portal confluence on EUS. Moreover, artificial intelligence algorithms have been deployed in differentiating pathology including pancreas cancer, autoimmune pancreatitis, pancreatic cystic lesions, and biliary strictures.

EXPERT OPINION

There have been relatively few studies with limited sample sizes in developing these machine learning algorithms. Despite the early successful demonstration of artificial intelligence in pancreaticobiliary endoscopy, additional research needs to be conducted with larger data sets to improve generalizability and assessed in real-time endoscopy before clinical implementation. However, pancreaticobiliary endoscopy remains a promising avenue of artificial intelligence application with the potential to improve clinical practice and outcomes.

Advanced molecular approaches in male infertility diagnosis

In the recent years a special attention has been given to a major health concern namely to male infertility, defined as the inability to conceive after 12 months of regular unprotected sexual intercourse, taken into account the statistics that highlight that sperm counts have dropped by 50-60% in recent decades. According to the WHO, infertility affects approximately 9% of couples globally, and the male factor is believed to be present in roughly 50% of cases, with exclusive responsibility in 30%. The aim of this manuscript is to present an evidence-based approach for diagnosing male infertility that includes finding new solutions for diagnosis and critical outcomes, retrieving up-to-date studies and existing guidelines. The diverse factors that induce male infertility generated in a vast amount of data that needed to be analysed by a clinician before a decision could be made for each individual. Modern medicine faces numerous obstacles as a result of the massive amount of data generated by the molecular biology discipline. To address complex clinical problems, vast data must be collected, analysed, and used, which can be very challenging. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) methods to create a decision support system can help predict the diagnosis and guide treatment for infertile men, based on analysis of different data as environmental and lifestyle, clinical (sperm count, morphology, hormone testing, karyotype, etc.) and "omics" bigdata. Ultimately, the development of AI algorithms will assist clinicians in formulating diagnosis, making treatment decisions, and predicting outcomes for assisted reproduction techniques.

The Feasibility of Applying Artificial Intelligence to Gastrointestinal Endoscopy to Improve the Detection Rate of Early Gastric Cancer Screening

Convolutional neural networks in the field of artificial intelligence show great potential in image recognition. It assisted endoscopy to improve the detection rate of early gastric cancer. The 5-year survival rate for advanced gastric cancer is less than 30%, while the 5-year survival rate for early gastric cancer is more than 90%. Therefore, earlier screening for gastric cancer can lead to a better prognosis. However, the detection rate of early gastric cancer in China has been extremely low due to many factors, such as the presence of gastric cancer without obvious symptoms, difficulty identifying lesions by the naked eye, and a lack of experience among endoscopists. The introduction of artificial intelligence can help mitigate these shortcomings and greatly improve the accuracy of screening. According to relevant reports, the sensitivity and accuracy of artificial intelligence trained on deep cirrocumulus neural networks are better than those of endoscopists, and evaluations also take less time, which can greatly reduce the burden on endoscopists. In addition, artificial intelligence can also perform real-time detection and feedback on the inspection process of the endoscopist to standardize the operation of the endoscopist. AI has also shown great potential in training novice endoscopists. With the maturity of AI technology, AI has the ability to improve the detection rate of early gastric cancer in China and reduce the death rate of gastric cancer related diseases in China.

Scoping out the future: The application of artificial intelligence to gastrointestinal endoscopy

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a quickly expanding field in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Although there are a myriad of applications of AI ranging from identification of bleeding to predicting outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, a great deal of research has focused on the identification and classification of gastrointestinal malignancies. Several of the initial randomized, prospective trials utilizing AI in clinical medicine have centered on polyp detection during screening colonoscopy. In addition to work focused on colorectal cancer, AI systems have also been applied to gastric, esophageal, pancreatic, and liver cancers. Despite promising results in initial studies, the generalizability of most of these AI systems have not yet been evaluated. In this article we review recent developments in the field of AI applied to gastrointestinal oncology.

Does computer-aided diagnostic endoscopy improve the detection of commonly missed polyps? A meta-analysis

Background/Aims

Colonoscopy is the gold standard diagnostic method for colorectal neoplasia, allowing detection and resection of adenomatous polyps; however, significant proportions of adenomas are missed. Computer-aided detection (CADe) systems in endoscopy are currently available to help identify lesions. Diminutive (≤5 mm) and nonpedunculated polyps are most commonly missed. This meta-analysis aimed to assess whether CADe systems can improve the real-time detection of these commonly missed lesions.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was performed. Randomized controlled trials evaluating CADe systems categorized by morphology and lesion size were included. The mean number of polyps and adenomas per patient was derived. Independent proportions and their differences were calculated using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects modeling.

Results

Seven studies, including 2,595 CADe-assisted colonoscopies and 2,622 conventional colonoscopies, were analyzed. CADe-assisted colonoscopy demonstrated an 80% increase in the mean number of diminutive adenomas detected per patient compared with conventional colonoscopy (0.31 vs. 0.17; effect size, 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09–0.18); it also demonstrated a 91.7% increase in the mean number of nonpedunculated adenomas detected per patient (0.32 vs. 0.19; effect size, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02–0.07).

Conclusions

CADe-assisted endoscopy significantly improved the detection of most commonly missed adenomas. Although this method is a potentially exciting technology, limitations still apply to current data, prompting the need for further real-time studies.

Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Gastroenterology and Hepatology

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into gastroenterology and hepatology (GI) will inevitably transform the practice of GI in the coming decade. While the application of AI in health care is not new, advancements are occurring rapidly, and the future landscape of AI is beginning to come into focus. From endoscopic assistance via computer vision technology to the predictive capabilities of the vast information contained in the electronic health records, AI promises to optimize and expedite clinical and procedural practice and research in GI. The extensive body of literature already available on AI applications in gastroenterology may seem daunting at first; however, this review aims to provide a breakdown of the key studies conducted thus far and demonstrate the many potential ways this technology may impact the field. This review will also take a look into the future and imagine how GI can be transformed over the coming years, as well as potential limitations and pitfalls that must be overcome to realize this future.

Comparing the number and relevance of false activations between 2 artificial intelligence computer-aided detection systems: the NOISE study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Artificial intelligence has been shown to be effective in polyp detection, and multiple computer-aided detection (CADe) systems have been developed. False-positive (FP) activation emerged as a possible way to benchmark CADe performance in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to validate a previously developed classification of FPs comparing the performances of different brands of approved CADe systems.

METHODS

We compared 2 different consecutive video libraries (40 video per arm) collected at Humanitas Research Hospital with 2 different CADe system brands (CADe A and CADe B). For each video, the number of CADe false activations, cause, and time spent by the endoscopist to examine the area erroneously highlighted were reported. The FP activations were classified according to the previously developed classification of FPs (the NOISE classification) according to their cause and relevance.

RESULTS

In CADe A 1021 FP activations were registered across the 40 videos (25.5 ± 12.2 FPs per colonoscopy), whereas in CADe B 1028 were identified (25.7 ± 13.2 FPs per colonoscopy; P = .53). Among them, 22.9 ± 9.9 (89.8% in CADe A) and 22.1 ± 10.0 (86.0% in CADe B) were because of artifacts from the bowel wall. Conversely, 2.6 ± 1.9 (10.2% in CADe A) and 3.5 ± 2.1 (14% in CADe B) were caused by bowel content (P = .45). Within CADe A each false activation required .2 ± .9 seconds, with 1.6 ± 1.0 FPs (6.3%) requiring additional time for endoscopic assessment. Comparable results were reported within CADe B with .2 ± .8 seconds spent per false activation and 1.8 ± 1.2 FPs per colonoscopy requiring additional inspection.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a standardized nomenclature provided comparable results with either of the 2 recently approved CADe systems. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04399590.).

Artificial Intelligence in Endoscopy

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly developing in various medical fields, and there is an increase in research performed in the field of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. In particular, the advent of convolutional neural network, which is a class of deep learning method, has the potential to revolutionize the field of GI endoscopy, including esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), capsule endoscopy (CE), and colonoscopy. A total of 149 original articles pertaining to AI (27 articles in esophagus, 30 articles in stomach, 29 articles in CE, and 63 articles in colon) were identified in this review. The main focuses of AI in EGD are cancer detection, identifying the depth of cancer invasion, prediction of pathological diagnosis, and prediction of Helicobacter pylori infection. In the field of CE, automated detection of bleeding sites, ulcers, tumors, and various small bowel diseases is being investigated. AI in colonoscopy has advanced with several patient-based prospective studies being conducted on the automated detection and classification of colon polyps. Furthermore, research on inflammatory bowel disease has also been recently reported. Most studies of AI in the field of GI endoscopy are still in the preclinical stages because of the retrospective design using still images. Video-based prospective studies are needed to advance the field. However, AI will continue to develop and be used in daily clinical practice in the near future. In this review, we have highlighted the published literature along with providing current status and insights into the future of AI in GI endoscopy.

Endoscopists' Acceptance on the Implementation of Artificial Intelligence in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Development and Case Analysis of a Scale

Background

The purpose of this paper is to develop and validate a standardized endoscopist acceptance scale for the implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Methods

After investigating endoscopists who have previously used AI and consulting with AI experts, we developed a provisional scale to measure the acceptance of AI as used in gastrointestinal endoscopy that was then distributed to a sample of endoscopists who have used AI. After analyzing the feedback data collected on the provisional scale, we developed a new formal scale with four factors. Cronbach's alpha, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), content validity, and related validity were conducted to test the reliability and validity of the formal scale. We also constructed a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve in order to determine the scale's ability to distinguish higher acceptance and satisfaction.

Results

A total of 210 valid formal scale data points were collected. The overall Cronbach's alpha was 0.904. All the factor loadings were >0.50, of which the highest factor loading was 0.86 and the lowest was 0.54 (AVE = 0.580, CR = 0.953). The correlation coefficient between the total score of the scale and the satisfaction score was 0.876, and the area under the ROC curve was 0.949 ± 0.031. Endoscopists with a score higher than 50 tend to be accepting and satisfied with AI.

Conclusion

This study yielded a viable questionnaire to measure the acceptance among endoscopists of the implementation of AI in gastroenterology.

Performance of Convolutional Neural Networks for Polyp Localization on Public Colonoscopy Image Datasets

Colorectal cancer is one of the most frequent malignancies. Colonoscopy is the de facto standard for precancerous lesion detection in the colon, i.e., polyps, during screening studies or after facultative recommendation. In recent years, artificial intelligence, and especially deep learning techniques such as convolutional neural networks, have been applied to polyp detection and localization in order to develop real-time CADe systems. However, the performance of machine learning models is very sensitive to changes in the nature of the testing instances, especially when trying to reproduce results for totally different datasets to those used for model development, i.e., inter-dataset testing. Here, we report the results of testing of our previously published polyp detection model using ten public colonoscopy image datasets and analyze them in the context of the results of other 20 state-of-the-art publications using the same datasets. The F1-score of our recently published model was 0.88 when evaluated on a private test partition, i.e., intra-dataset testing, but it decayed, on average, by 13.65% when tested on ten public datasets. In the published research, the average intra-dataset F1-score is 0.91, and we observed that it also decays in the inter-dataset setting to an average F1-score of 0.83.