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

Computer-aided quality assessment of endoscopist competence during colonoscopy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopists' competence can vary widely, as shown in the variation in the adenoma detection rate (ADR). Computer-aided quality assessment (CAQ) can automatically assess performance during individual procedures. In this review we identified and described different CAQ systems for colonoscopy.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was done using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus based on 3 blocks of terms according to the inclusion criteria: colonoscopy, competence assessment, and automatic evaluation. Articles were systematically reviewed by 2 reviewers, first by abstract and then in full text. The methodological quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI).

RESULTS

Of 12,575 identified studies, 6831 remained after removal of duplicates and 6806 did not pass the eligibility criteria and were excluded, leaving 25 studies, of which 13 studies were included in the final analysis. Five categories of CAQ systems were identified: withdrawal speedometer (7 studies), endoscope movement analysis (3 studies), effective withdrawal time (1 study), fold examination quality (1 study), and visual gaze pattern (1 study). The withdrawal speedometer was the only CAQ system that tested its feedback by examining changes in ADR. Three studies observed an improvement in ADR, and 2 studies did not. The methodological quality of the studies was high (mean MERSQI, 15.2 points; maximum, 18 points).

CONCLUSIONS

Thirteen studies developed or tested CAQ systems, most frequently by correlating it to the ADR. Only 5 studies tested feedback by implementing the CAQ system. A meta-analysis was impossible because of the heterogeneous study designs, and more studies are warranted.

Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy

Diagnostic errors impact patient health and healthcare costs. Artificial Intelligence (AI) shows promise in mitigating this burden by supporting Medical Doctors in decision-making. However, the mere display of excellent or even superhuman performance by AI in specific tasks does not guarantee a positive impact on medical practice. Effective AI assistance should target the primary causes of human errors and foster effective collaborative decision-making with human experts who remain the ultimate decision-makers. In this narrative review, we apply these principles to the specific scenario of AI assistance during colonoscopy. By unraveling the neurocognitive foundations of the colonoscopy procedure, we identify multiple bottlenecks in perception, attention, and decision-making that contribute to diagnostic errors, shedding light on potential interventions to mitigate them. Furthermore, we explored how existing AI devices fare in clinical practice and whether they achieved an optimal integration with the human decision-maker. We argue that to foster optimal Human-AI collaboration, future research should expand our knowledge of factors influencing AI's impact, establish evidence-based cognitive models, and develop training programs based on them. These efforts will enhance human-AI collaboration, ultimately improving diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes. The principles illuminated in this review hold more general value, extending their relevance to a wide array of medical procedures and beyond.

Advancement of artificial intelligence systems for surveillance endoscopy of Barrett's esophagus

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a precursor disease for esophageal adenocarcinoma. Timely detection and treatment has significant influence on patient outcomes. Over the last years, several artificial intelligence (AI) systems have emerged to assist the endoscopist. The primary focus of research has been computer aided detection (CADe). Several groups have succeeded in developing competitive models for neoplasia detection. Additionally, computer aided diagnosis (CADx) models have been developed for subsequent lesion characterization and assistance in clinical decision making. Future studies should focus on bridging the domain gap between academic development and integration in daily practice.

Artificial Intelligence-assisted colonoscopy and colorectal cancer screening: Where are we going?

Colorectal cancer is a significant global health concern, necessitating effective screening strategies to reduce its incidence and mortality rates. Colonoscopy plays a crucial role in the detection and removal of colorectal neoplastic precursors. However, there are limitations and variations in the performance of endoscopists, leading to missed lesions and suboptimal outcomes. The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) in endoscopy offers promising opportunities to improve the quality and efficacy of screening colonoscopies. In particular, AI applications, including computer-aided detection (CADe) and computer-aided characterization (CADx), have demonstrated the potential to enhance adenoma detection and optical diagnosis accuracy. Additionally, AI-assisted quality control systems aim to standardize the endoscopic examination process. This narrative review provides an overview of AI principles and discusses the current knowledge on AI-assisted endoscopy in the context of screening colonoscopies. It highlights the significant role of AI in improving lesion detection, characterization, and quality assurance during colonoscopy. However, further well-designed studies are needed to validate the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of AI-assisted colonoscopy before its widespread implementation.

Assessment of the role of false-positive alerts in computer-aided polyp detection for assistance capabilities

BACKGROUND AND AIM

False positives (FPs) pose a significant challenge in the application of artificial intelligence (AI) for polyp detection during colonoscopy. The study aimed to quantitatively evaluate the impact of computer-aided polyp detection (CADe) systems' FPs on endoscopists.

METHODS

The model's FPs were categorized into four gradients: 0-5, 5-10, 10-15, and 15-20 FPs per minute (FPPM). Fifty-six colonoscopy videos were collected for a crossover study involving 10 endoscopists. Polyp missed rate (PMR) was set as primary outcome. Subsequently, to further verify the impact of FPPM on the assistance capability of AI in clinical environments, a secondary analysis was conducted on a prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) from Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University in China from July 1 to October 15, 2020, with the adenoma detection rate (ADR) as primary outcome.

RESULTS

Compared with routine group, CADe reduced PMR when FPPM was less than 5. However, with the continuous increase of FPPM, the beneficial effect of CADe gradually weakens. For secondary analysis of RCT, a total of 956 patients were enrolled. In AI-assisted group, ADR is higher when FPPM ≤ 5 compared with FPPM > 5 (CADe group: 27.78% vs 11.90%; P = 0.014; odds ratio [OR], 0.351; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.152-0.812; COMBO group: 38.40% vs 23.46%, P = 0.029; OR, 0.427; 95% CI, 0.199-0.916). After AI intervention, ADR increased when FPPM ≤ 5 (27.78% vs 14.76%; P = 0.001; OR, 0.399; 95% CI, 0.231-0.690), but no statistically significant difference was found when FPPM > 5 (11.90% vs 14.76%, P = 0.788; OR, 1.111; 95% CI, 0.514-2.403).

CONCLUSION

The level of FPs of CADe does affect its effectiveness as an aid to endoscopists, with its best effect when FPPM is less than 5.

Colonoscopy vs the Fecal Immunochemical Test: Which is Best?

Although there is no debate around the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in reducing disease burden, there remains a question regarding the most effective and cost-effective screening modality. Current United States guidelines present a panel of options that include the 2 most commonly used modalities, colonoscopy and stool testing with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Large-scale comparative effectiveness trials comparing colonoscopy and FIT for colorectal cancer outcomes are underway, but results are not yet available. This review will separately state the "best case" for FIT and colonoscopy as the screening tool of first choice. In addition, the review will examine these modalities from a health economics perspective to provide the reader further context about the relative advantages of these commonly used tests.

As how artificial intelligence is revolutionizing endoscopy

With incessant advances in information technology and its implications in all domains of our lives, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a requirement for improved machine performance. This brings forth the query of how this can benefit endoscopists and improve both diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy in each part of the gastrointestinal tract. Additionally, it also raises the question of the recent benefits and clinical usefulness of this new technology in daily endoscopic practice. There are two main categories of AI systems: computer-assisted detection (CADe) for lesion detection and computer-assisted diagnosis (CADx) for optical biopsy and lesion characterization. Quality assurance is the next step in the complete monitoring of high-quality colonoscopies. In all cases, computer-aided endoscopy is used, as the overall results rely on the physician. Video capsule endoscopy is a unique example in which a computer operates a device, stores multiple images, and performs an accurate diagnosis. While there are many expectations, we need to standardize and assess various software packages. It is important for healthcare providers to support this new development and make its use an obligation in daily clinical practice. In summary, AI represents a breakthrough in digestive endoscopy. Screening for gastric and colonic cancer detection should be improved, particularly outside expert centers. Prospective and multicenter trials are mandatory before introducing new software into clinical practice.

Impact of study design on adenoma detection in the evaluation of artificial intelligence-aided colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported that artificial intelligence (AI) improves endoscopic polyp detection. Different methodologies-namely, parallel and tandem designs-have been used to evaluate the efficacy of AI-assisted colonoscopy in RCTs. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported a pooled effect that includes both study designs. However, it is unclear whether there are inconsistencies in the reported results of these 2 designs. Here, we aimed to determine whether study characteristics moderate between-trial differences in outcomes when evaluating the effectiveness of AI-assisted polyp detection.

METHODS

A systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore was performed through March 1, 2023, for RCTs comparing AI-assisted colonoscopy with routine high-definition colonoscopy in polyp detection. The primary outcome of interest was the impact of study type on the adenoma detection rate (ADR). Secondary outcomes included the impact of the study type on adenomas per colonoscopy and withdrawal time, as well as the impact of geographic location, AI system, and endoscopist experience on ADR. Pooled event analysis was performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-four RCTs involving 17,413 colonoscopies (AI assisted: 8680; non-AI assisted: 8733) were included. AI-assisted colonoscopy improved overall ADR (risk ratio [RR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-1.31; I2 = 53%; P < .001). Tandem studies collectively demonstrated improved ADR in AI-aided colonoscopies (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.08-1.30; I2 = 0%; P < .001), as did parallel studies (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.17-1.35; I2 = 62%; P < .001), with no statistical subgroup difference between study design. Both tandem and parallel study designs revealed improvement in adenomas per colonoscopy in AI-aided colonoscopies, but this improvement was more marked among tandem studies (P < .001). AI assistance significantly increased withdrawal times for parallel (P = .002), but not tandem, studies. ADR improvement was more marked among studies conducted in Asia compared to Europe and North America in a subgroup analysis (P = .007). Type of AI system used or endoscopist experience did not affect overall improvement in ADR.

CONCLUSIONS

Either parallel or tandem study design can capture the improvement in ADR resulting from the use of AI-assisted polyp detection systems. Tandem studies powered to detect differences in endoscopic performance through paired comparison may be a resource-efficient method of evaluating new AI-assisted technologies.

Single Versus Second Observer vs Artificial Intelligence to Increase the ADENOMA Detection Rate of Colonoscopy-A Network Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Screening colonoscopy has significantly contributed to the reduction of the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and its associated mortality, with adenoma detection rate (ADR) as the quality marker. To increase the ADR, various solutions have been proposed including the utilization of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and employing second observers during colonoscopies. In the interest of AI improving ADR independently, without a second observer, and the operational similarity between AI and second observer, this network meta-analysis aims at evaluating the effectiveness of AI, second observer, and a single observer in improving ADR.

METHODS

We searched the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science Core Collection, Korean Citation Index, SciELO, Global Index Medicus, and Cochrane. A direct head-to-head comparator analysis and network meta-analysis were performed using the random-effects model. The odds ratio (OR) was calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

We analyzed 26 studies, involving 22,560 subjects. In the direct comparative analysis, AI demonstrated higher ADR (OR: 0.668, 95% CI 0.595-0.749, p < 0.001) than single observer. Dual observer demonstrated a higher ADR (OR: 0.771, 95% CI 0.688-0.865, p < 0.001) than single operator. In network meta-analysis, results were consistent on the network meta-analysis, maintaining consistency. No statistical difference was noted when comparing AI to second observer. (RR 1.1 (0.9-1.2, p = 0.3). Results were consistent when evaluating only RCTs. Net ranking provided higher score to AI followed by second observer followed by single observer.

CONCLUSION

Artificial Intelligence and second-observer colonoscopy showed superior success in Adenoma Detection Rate when compared to single-observer colonoscopy. Although not statistically significant, net ranking model favors the superiority of AI to the second observer.

Artificial Intelligence in the Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer: A Literature Review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this review is to explore the role of artificial intelligence in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer, how it impacts CRC morbidity and mortality, and why its role in clinical medicine is limited.

METHODS

A targeted, non-systematic review of the published literature relating to colorectal cancer diagnosis was performed with PubMed databases that were scouted to help provide a more defined understanding of the recent advances regarding artificial intelligence and their impact on colorectal-related morbidity and mortality. Articles were included if deemed relevant and including information associated with the keywords.

RESULTS

The advancements in artificial intelligence have been significant in facilitating an earlier diagnosis of CRC. In this review, we focused on evaluating genomic biomarkers, the integration of instruments with artificial intelligence, MR and hyperspectral imaging, and the architecture of neural networks. We found that these neural networks seem practical and yield positive results in initial testing. Furthermore, we explored the use of deep-learning-based majority voting methods, such as bag of words and PAHLI, in improving diagnostic accuracy in colorectal cancer detection. Alongside this, the autonomous and expansive learning ability of artificial intelligence, coupled with its ability to extract increasingly complex features from images or videos without human reliance, highlight its impact in the diagnostic sector. Despite this, as most of the research involves a small sample of patients, a diversification of patient data is needed to enhance cohort stratification for a more sensitive and specific neural model. We also examined the successful application of artificial intelligence in predicting microsatellite instability, showcasing its potential in stratifying patients for targeted therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Since its commencement in colorectal cancer, artificial intelligence has revealed a multitude of functionalities and augmentations in the diagnostic sector of CRC. Given its early implementation, its clinical application remains a fair way away, but with steady research dedicated to improving neural architecture and expanding its applicational range, there is hope that these advanced neural software could directly impact the early diagnosis of CRC. The true promise of artificial intelligence, extending beyond the medical sector, lies in its potential to significantly influence the future landscape of CRC's morbidity and mortality.

Concordance of randomised controlled trials for artificial intelligence interventions with the CONSORT-AI reporting guidelines

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials extension for Artificial Intelligence interventions (CONSORT-AI) was published in September 2020. Since its publication, several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of AI interventions have been published but their completeness and transparency of reporting is unknown. This systematic review assesses the completeness of reporting of AI RCTs following publication of CONSORT-AI and provides a comprehensive summary of RCTs published in recent years. 65 RCTs were identified, mostly conducted in China (37%) and USA (18%). Median concordance with CONSORT-AI reporting was 90% (IQR 77-94%), although only 10 RCTs explicitly reported its use. Several items were consistently under-reported, including algorithm version, accessibility of the AI intervention or code, and references to a study protocol. Only 3 of 52 included journals explicitly endorsed or mandated CONSORT-AI. Despite a generally high concordance amongst recent AI RCTs, some AI-specific considerations remain systematically poorly reported. Further encouragement of CONSORT-AI adoption by journals and funders may enable more complete adoption of the full CONSORT-AI guidelines.

Direct comparison of multiple computer-aided polyp detection systems

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems for computer-aided detection (CADe) of polyps receive regular updates and occasionally offer customizable detection thresholds, both of which impact their performance, but little is known about these effects. This study aimed to compare the performance of different CADe systems on the same benchmark dataset.

METHODS

 101 colonoscopy videos were used as benchmark. Each video frame with a visible polyp was manually annotated with bounding boxes, resulting in 129 705 polyp images. The videos were then analyzed by three different CADe systems, representing five conditions: two versions of GI Genius, Endo-AID with detection Types A and B, and EndoMind, a freely available system. Evaluation included an analysis of sensitivity and false-positive rate, among other metrics.

RESULTS

 Endo-AID detection Type A, the earlier version of GI Genius, and EndoMind detected all 93 polyps. Both the later version of GI Genius and Endo-AID Type B missed 1 polyp. The mean per-frame sensitivities were 50.63 % and 67.85 %, respectively, for the earlier and later versions of GI Genius, 65.60 % and 52.95 %, respectively, for Endo-AID Types A and B, and 60.22 % for EndoMind.

CONCLUSIONS

 This study compares the performance of different CADe systems, different updates, and different configuration modes. This might help clinicians to select the most appropriate system for their specific needs.

Effect of artificial intelligence on novice-performed colonoscopy: a multicenter randomized controlled tandem study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The efficacy and safety of colonoscopy performed by artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted novices remain unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the lesion detection capability of novices, AI-assisted novices, and experts.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, noninferiority tandem study was conducted across 3 hospitals in China from May 1, 2022, to November 11, 2022. Eligible patients were randomized into 1 of 3 groups: the CN group (control novice group, withdrawal performed by a novice independently), the AN group (AI-assisted novice group, withdrawal performed by a novice with AI assistance), or the CE group (control expert group, withdrawal performed by an expert independently). Participants underwent a repeat colonoscopy conducted by an AI-assisted expert to evaluate the lesion miss rate and ensure lesion detection. The primary outcome was the adenoma miss rate (AMR).

RESULTS

A total of 685 eligible patients were analyzed: 229 in the CN group, 227 in the AN group, and 229 in the CE group. Both AMR and polyp miss rate were lower in the AN group than in the CN group (18.82% vs 43.69% [P < .001] and 21.23% vs 35.38% [P < .001], respectively). The noninferiority margin was met between the AN and CE groups of both AMR and polyp miss rate (18.82% vs 26.97% [P = .202] and 21.23% vs 24.10% [P < .249]).

CONCLUSIONS

AI-assisted colonoscopy lowered the AMR of novices, making them noninferior to experts. The withdrawal technique of new endoscopists can be enhanced by AI-assisted colonoscopy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT05323279.).

Artificial intelligence for colorectal neoplasia detection during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in detecting colorectal neoplasia during colonoscopy holds the potential to enhance adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and reduce adenoma miss rates (AMRs). However, varied outcomes have been observed across studies. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the potential advantages and disadvantages of employing AI-aided systems during colonoscopy.

METHODS

Using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords, a comprehensive electronic literature search was performed of the Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library databases from the inception of each database until October 04, 2023, in order to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AI-assisted with standard colonoscopy for detecting colorectal neoplasia. Primary outcomes included AMR, ADR, and adenomas detected per colonoscopy (APC). Secondary outcomes comprised the poly missed detection rate (PMR), poly detection rate (PDR), and poly detected per colonoscopy (PPC). We utilized random-effects meta-analyses with Hartung-Knapp adjustment to consolidate results. The prediction interval (PI) and I2 statistics were utilized to quantify between-study heterogeneity. Moreover, meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to investigate the potential sources of heterogeneity. This systematic review and meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023428658).

FINDINGS

This study encompassed 33 trials involving 27,404 patients. Those undergoing AI-aided colonoscopy experienced a significant decrease in PMR (RR, 0.475; 95% CI, 0.294-0.768; I2 = 87.49%) and AMR (RR, 0.495; 95% CI, 0.390-0.627; I2 = 48.76%). Additionally, a significant increase in PDR (RR, 1.238; 95% CI, 1.158-1.323; I2 = 81.67%) and ADR (RR, 1.242; 95% CI, 1.159-1.332; I2 = 78.87%), along with a significant increase in the rates of PPC (IRR, 1.388; 95% CI, 1.270-1.517; I2 = 91.99%) and APC (IRR, 1.390; 95% CI, 1.277-1.513; I2 = 86.24%), was observed. This resulted in 0.271 more PPCs (95% CI, 0.144-0.259; I2 = 65.61%) and 0.202 more APCs (95% CI, 0.144-0.259; I2 = 68.15%).

INTERPRETATION

AI-aided colonoscopy significantly enhanced the detection of colorectal neoplasia detection, likely by reducing the miss rate. However, future studies should focus on evaluating the cost-effectiveness and long-term benefits of AI-aided colonoscopy in reducing cancer incidence.

FUNDING

This work was supported by the Heilongjiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (LH2023H096), the Postdoctoral research project in Heilongjiang Province (LBH-Z22210), the National Natural Science Foundation of China's General Program (82072640) and the Outstanding Youth Project of Heilongjiang Natural Science Foundation (YQ2021H023).

Third Eye? The Assistance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Endoscopy of Gastrointestinal Neoplasms

Gastrointestinal cancers are characterized by high incidence and mortality. However, there are well-established methods of screening. The endoscopy exam provides the macroscopical image and enables harvesting the tissue samples for further histopathological diagnosis. The efficiency of endoscopies relies not only on proper patient preparation, but also on the skills of the personnel conducting the exam. In recent years, a number of reports concerning the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine have arisen. Numerous studies aimed to assess the utility of deep learning/ neural network systems supporting endoscopies. In this review, we summarized the most recent reports and randomized clinical trials regarding the application of AI in screening and surveillance of gastrointestinal cancers among patients suffering from esophageal, gastric, and colorectal cancer, along with the advantages, limitations, and controversies of those novel solutions.

Performing High-Quality, Safe, Cost-Effective, and Efficient Basic Colonoscopy in 2023: Advice From Two Experts

Based on published evidence and our expert experience, we provide recommendations to maximize the efficacy, safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of routine colonoscopy. High-quality colonoscopy begins with colon preparation using a split or same-day dose and preferably a low-volume regimen for optimal patient tolerance and compliance. Successful cecal intubation can be achieved by choosing the correct colonoscope and using techniques to facilitate navigation through challenges such as severe angulations and redundant colons. Safety is a primary goal, and complications such as perforation and splenic rupture can be prevented by avoiding pushing through fixed resistance and avoiding loops in proximal colon. Furthermore, barotrauma can be avoided by converting to water filling only (no gas insufflation) in every patient with a narrowed, angulated sigmoid. Optimal polyp detection relies primarily on compulsive attention to inspection as manifested by adequate inspection time, vigorous probing of the spaces between haustral folds, washing and removing residual debris, and achieving full distention. Achieving minimum recommended adenoma detection rate thresholds (30% in men and 20% in women) is mandatory, and colonoscopists should aspire to adenoma detection rate approaching 50% in screening patients. Distal attachments can improve mucosal exposure and increase detection while shortening withdrawal times. Complete resection of polyps complements polyp detection in preventing colorectal cancer. Cold resection is the preferred method for all polyps < 10 mm. For effective cold resection, an adequate rim of normal tissue should be captured in the snare. Finally, cost-effective high-quality colonoscopy requires the procedure not be overused, as demonstrated by following updated United States Multi Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer postpolypectomy surveillance recommendations.

Artificial intelligence in endoscopy: Overview, applications, and future directions

Since the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine, endoscopy applications in gastroenterology have been at the forefront of innovations. The ever-increasing number of studies necessitates the need to organize and classify applications in a useful way. Separating AI capabilities by computer aided detection (CADe), diagnosis (CADx), and quality assessment (CADq) allows for a systematic evaluation of each application. CADe studies have shown promise in accurate detection of esophageal, gastric and colonic neoplasia as well as identifying sources of bleeding and Crohn's disease in the small bowel. While more advanced CADx applications employ optical biopsies to give further information to characterize neoplasia and grade inflammatory disease, diverse CADq applications ensure quality and increase the efficiency of procedures. Future applications show promise in advanced therapeutic modalities and integrated systems that provide multimodal capabilities. AI is set to revolutionize clinical decision making and performance of endoscopy.

Real-Time Computer-Aided Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia During Colonoscopy : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection (CADe) of colorectal neoplasia during colonoscopy may increase adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and reduce adenoma miss rates, but it may increase overdiagnosis and overtreatment of nonneoplastic polyps.

PURPOSE

To quantify the benefits and harms of CADe in randomized trials.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis. (PROSPERO: CRD42022293181).

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases through February 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials comparing CADe-assisted with standard colonoscopy for polyp and cancer detection.

DATA EXTRACTION

Adenoma detection rate (proportion of patients with ≥1 adenoma), number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy, advanced adenoma (≥10 mm with high-grade dysplasia and villous histology), number of serrated lesions per colonoscopy, and adenoma miss rate were extracted as benefit outcomes. Number of polypectomies for nonneoplastic lesions and withdrawal time were extracted as harm outcomes. For each outcome, studies were pooled using a random-effects model. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Twenty-one randomized trials on 18 232 patients were included. The ADR was higher in the CADe group than in the standard colonoscopy group (44.0% vs. 35.9%; relative risk, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.16 to 1.33]; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to a 55% (risk ratio, 0.45 [CI, 0.35 to 0.58]) relative reduction in miss rate (moderate-certainty evidence). More nonneoplastic polyps were removed in the CADe than the standard group (0.52 vs. 0.34 per colonoscopy; mean difference [MD], 0.18 polypectomy [CI, 0.11 to 0.26 polypectomy]; low-certainty evidence). Mean inspection time increased only marginally with CADe (MD, 0.47 minute [CI, 0.23 to 0.72 minute]; moderate-certainty evidence).

LIMITATIONS

This review focused on surrogates of patient-important outcomes. Most patients, however, may consider cancer incidence and cancer-related mortality important outcomes. The effect of CADe on such patient-important outcomes remains unclear.

CONCLUSION

The use of CADe for polyp detection during colonoscopy results in increased detection of adenomas but not advanced adenomas and in higher rates of unnecessary removal of nonneoplastic polyps.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

European Commission Horizon 2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship.

Advancing Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Comprehensive Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Versus Routine Colonoscopy

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a rapidly escalating public health concern, which underlines the significance of its early detection and the need for the refinement of current screening methods. In this systematic review, we aimed to analyze the potential advantages and limitations of artificial intelligence (AI)-based computer-aided detection (CADe) systems as compared to routine colonoscopy. This review begins by shedding light on the global prevalence and mortality rates of CRC, highlighting the urgent need for effective screening techniques and early detection of this cancer type. It addresses the problems associated with undetected adenomas and polyps and the subsequent risk of interval CRC following colonoscopy. The incorporation of AI into diagnostics has been studied, specifically the use of CADe systems which are powered by deep learning. The review summarizes the findings from 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (2019-2023), evaluating the impact of CADe on polyp and adenoma detection. The findings from the studies consistently show that CADe is superior to conventional colonoscopy procedures in terms of adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR), particularly with regard to small and flat lesions which are easily overlooked. The review acknowledges certain limitations of the included studies, such as potential performance bias and geographic limitations. The review ultimately concludes that AI-assisted colonoscopy can reduce missed lesion rates and improve CRC diagnosis. Collaboration between experts and clinicians is key for successful implementation. In summary, this review analyzes recent RCTs on AI-assisted colonoscopy for polyp and adenoma detection. It describes the likely benefits, limitations, and future implications of AI in enhancing colonoscopy procedures and lowering the incidence of CRC. More double-blinded trials and studies among diverse populations from different countries must be conducted to substantiate and expand upon the findings of this review.

Artificial intelligence in digestive endoscopy: recent advances

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With the incessant advances in information technology and its implications in all domains of our life, artificial intelligence (AI) started to emerge as a need for better machine performance. How it can help endoscopists and what are the areas of interest in improving both diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy in each part of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. What are the recent benefits and clinical usefulness of this new technology in daily endoscopic practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

The two main AI systems categories are computer-assisted detection 'CADe' for lesion detection and computer-assisted diagnosis 'CADx' for optical biopsy and lesion characterization. Multiple softwares are now implemented in endoscopy practice. Other AI systems offer therapeutic assistance such as lesion delineation for complete endoscopic resection or prediction of possible lymphanode after endoscopic treatment. Quality assurance is the coming step with complete monitoring of high-quality colonoscopy. In all cases it is a computer-aid endoscopy as the overall result rely on the physician. Video capsule endoscopy is the unique example were the computer conduct the device, store multiple images, and perform accurate diagnosis.

SUMMARY

AI is a breakthrough in digestive endoscopy. Screening gastric and colonic cancer detection should be improved especially outside of expert's centers. Prospective and multicenter trials are mandatory before introducing new software in clinical practice.

Effectiveness and application of artificial intelligence for endoscopic screening of colorectal cancer: the future is now

INTRODUCTION

Artificial intelligence (AI) in gastrointestinal endoscopy includes systems designed to interpret medical images and increase sensitivity during examination. This may be a promising solution to human biases and may provide support during diagnostic endoscopy.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to summarize and evaluate data supporting AI technologies in lower endoscopy, addressing their effectiveness, limitations, and future perspectives.

EXPERT OPINION

Computer-aided detection (CADe) systems have been studied with promising results, allowing for an increase in adenoma detection rate (ADR), adenoma per colonoscopy (APC), and a reduction in adenoma miss rate (AMR). This may lead to an increase in the sensitivity of endoscopic examinations and a reduction in the risk of interval-colorectal cancer. In addition, computer-aided characterization (CADx) has also been implemented, aiming to distinguish adenomatous and non-adenomatous lesions through real-time assessment using advanced endoscopic imaging techniques. Moreover, computer-aided quality (CADq) systems have been developed with the aim of standardizing quality measures in colonoscopy (e.g. withdrawal time and adequacy of bowel cleansing) both to improve the quality of examinations and set a reference standard for randomized controlled trials.

Adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy: how can it be improved?

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of widespread colonoscopy screening programs has helped in decreasing the incidence of Colorectal Cancer (CRC). However, 'back-to-back' colonoscopies revealed relevant percentage of missed adenomas. Quality indicators were created to further homogenize detection performances and decrease the incidence of post-colonoscopy CRC. Among them, the Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR), defined as the percentage obtained by dividing the number of endoscopic procedures in which at least one adenoma was resected, by the total number of procedures, was found to be inversely associated with the risks of interval colorectal cancer, advanced-stage interval cancer, and fatal interval cancer.

AREAS COVERED

In this paper, we performed a comprehensive review of the literature focusing on promising new devices and technologies, which are meant to positively affect the endoscopist performance in detecting adenomas, therefore increasing ADR.

EXPERT OPINION

Considering the current knowledge, although several devices and technologies have been proposed with this intent, the recent implementation of AI ranked over all of the other strategies and it is likely to become the new standard within few years. However, the combination of different device/technologies need to be investigated in the future aiming at even further increasing of endoscopist detection performances.

Combination of Mucosa-Exposure Device and Computer-Aided Detection for Adenoma Detection During Colonoscopy: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Both computer-aided detection (CADe)-assisted and Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy have been found to increase adenoma detection. We investigated the performance of the combination of the 2 tools compared with CADe-assisted colonoscopy alone to detect colorectal neoplasias during colonoscopy in a multicenter randomized trial.

METHODS

Men and women undergoing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening, polyp surveillance, or clincial indications at 6 centers in Italy and Switzerland were enrolled. Patients were assigned (1:1) to colonoscopy with the combinations of CADe (GI-Genius; Medtronic) and a mucosal exposure device (Endocuff Vision [ECV]; Olympus) or to CADe-assisted colonoscopy alone (control group). All detected lesions were removed and sent to histopathology for diagnosis. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (percentage of patients with at least 1 histologically proven adenoma or carcinoma). Secondary outcomes were adenomas detected per colonoscopy, advanced adenomas and serrated lesions detection rate, the rate of unnecessary polypectomies (polyp resection without histologically proven adenomas), and withdrawal time.

RESULTS

From July 1, 2021 to May 31, 2022, there were 1316 subjects randomized and eligible for analysis; 660 to the ECV group, 656 to the control group). The adenoma detection rate was significantly higher in the ECV group (49.6%) than in the control group (44.0%) (relative risk, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00-1.26; P = .04). Adenomas detected per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the ECV group (mean ± SD, 0.94 ± 0.54) than in the control group (0.74 ± 0.21) (incidence rate ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.54; P = .02). The 2 groups did not differ in term of detection of advanced adenomas and serrated lesions. There was no significant difference between groups in mean ± SD withdrawal time (9.01 ± 2.48 seconds for the ECV group vs 8.96 ± 2.24 seconds for controls; P = .69) or proportion of subjects undergoing unnecessary polypectomies (relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69-1.14; P = .38).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of CADe and ECV during colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate and adenomas detected per colonoscopy without increasing withdrawal time compared with CADe alone.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, Number: NCT04676308.

Speedometer for withdrawal time monitoring during colonoscopy: a clinical implementation trial

OBJECTIVES

Meticulous inspection of the mucosa during colonoscopy, represents a lengthier withdrawal time, but has been shown to increase adenoma detection rate (ADR). We investigated if artificial intelligence-aided speed monitoring can improve suboptimal withdrawal time.

METHODS

We evaluated the implementation of a computer-aided speed monitoring device during colonoscopy at a large academic endoscopy center. After informed consent, patients ≥18 years undergoing colonoscopy between 5 March and 29 April 2021 were examined without the use of the speedometer, and with the speedometer between 29 April and 30 June 2021. All colonoscopies were recorded, and withdrawal time was assessed based on the recordings in a blinded fashion. We compared mean withdrawal time, percentage of withdrawal time ≥6 min, and ADR with and without the speedometer.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-six patients in each group were eligible for analyses. Mean withdrawal time was 9 min and 6.6 s (95% CI: 8 min and 34.8 s to 9 min and 39 s) without the use of the speedometer, and 9 min and 9 s (95% CI: 8 min and 45 s to 9 min and 33.6 s) with the speedometer; difference 2.3 s (95% CI: -42.3-37.7, p = 0.91). The ADRs were 45.2% (95% CI: 37.6-52.8) without the speedometer as compared to 45.8% (95% CI: 38.2-53.4) with the speedometer (p = 0.91). The proportion of colonoscopies with withdrawal time ≥6 min without the speedometer was 85.5% (95% CI: 80.2-90.9) versus 86.7% (95% CI: 81.6-91.9) with the speedometer (p = 0.75).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of speed monitoring during withdrawal did not increase withdrawal time or ADR in colonoscopy.

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT04710251.

Unlocking quality in endoscopic mucosal resection

A review of the development of the key performance metrics of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), learning from the experience of the establishment of widespread colonoscopy quality measurements. Potential future performance markers for both colonoscopy and EMR are also evaluated to ensure continued high quality performance is maintained with a focus service framework and predictors of patient outcome.

Artificial Intelligence Applied to Colonoscopy: Is It Time to Take a Step Forward?

Growing evidence indicates that artificial intelligence (AI) applied to medicine is here to stay. In gastroenterology, AI computer vision applications have been stated as a research priority. The two main AI system categories are computer-aided polyp detection (CADe) and computer-assisted diagnosis (CADx). However, other fields of expansion are those related to colonoscopy quality, such as methods to objectively assess colon cleansing during the colonoscopy, as well as devices to automatically predict and improve bowel cleansing before the examination, predict deep submucosal invasion, obtain a reliable measurement of colorectal polyps and accurately locate colorectal lesions in the colon. Although growing evidence indicates that AI systems could improve some of these quality metrics, there are concerns regarding cost-effectiveness, and large and multicentric randomized studies with strong outcomes, such as post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, are lacking. The integration of all these tasks into one quality-improvement device could facilitate the incorporation of AI systems in clinical practice. In this manuscript, the current status of the role of AI in colonoscopy is reviewed, as well as its current applications, drawbacks and areas for improvement.

Effectiveness of artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy in early diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

As artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted diagnosis gained immense popularity, it is imperative to consider its utility and efficiency in the early diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC), responsible for over 1.8 million cases and 881 000 deaths globally, as reported in 2018. Improved adenoma detection rate, as well as better characterizations of polyps, are significant advantages of AI-assisted colonoscopy (AIC). This systematic review (SR) investigates the effectiveness of AIC in the early diagnosis of CRC as compared to conventional colonoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases such as PubMed/Medline, SCOPUS, and Web of Science were reviewed for original studies (randomized controlled trials, observational studies), SRs, and meta-analysis between 2017 and 2022 utilizing Medical Subject Headings terminology in a broad search strategy. All searches were performed and analyzed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis methodology and were conducted from November 2022. A data extraction form based on the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review group's extraction template for quality assessment and evidence synthesis was used for data extraction. All included studies considered for bias and ethical criteria and provided valuable evidence to answer the research question.

RESULTS

The database search identified 218 studies, including 87 from PubMed, 60 from SCOPUS, and 71 from Web of Science databases. The retrieved studies from the databases were imported to Rayyan software and a duplicate article check was performed, all duplicate articles were removed after careful evaluation of the data. The abstract and full-text screening was performed in accordance with the following eligibility criteria: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for observational studies; Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for review articles, ENTREQ for narrative studies; and modified JADAD for randomized controlled trials. This yielded 15 studies that met the requirements for this SR and were finally included in the review.

CONCLUSION

AIC is a safe, highly effective screening tool that can increase the detection rate of adenomas, and polyps resulting in an early diagnosis of CRC in adults when compared to conventional colonoscopy. The results of this SR prompt further large-scale research to investigate the effectiveness in accordance with sex, race, and socioeconomic status, as well as its influence on prognosis and survival rate.

Artificial Intelligence-Aided Endoscopy and Colorectal Cancer Screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide, with the highest incidence reported in high-income countries. However, because of the slow progression of neoplastic precursors, along with the opportunity for their endoscopic detection and resection, a well-designed endoscopic screening program is expected to strongly decrease colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. In this regard, quality of colonoscopy has been clearly related with the risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Recently, the development of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in the medical field has been growing in interest. Through machine learning processes, and, more recently, deep learning, if a very high numbers of learning samples are available, AI systems may automatically extract specific features from endoscopic images/videos without human intervention, helping the endoscopists in different aspects of their daily practice. The aim of this review is to summarize the current knowledge on AI-aided endoscopy, and to outline its potential role in colorectal cancer prevention.

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.

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.

Application of artificial intelligence in diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer: A novel Prospect

In the past few decades, according to the rapid development of information technology, artificial intelligence (AI) has also made significant progress in the medical field. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most diagnosed cancer worldwide, and its incidence and mortality rates are increasing yearly, especially in developing countries. This article reviews the latest progress in AI in diagnosing and treating CRC based on a systematic collection of previous literature. Most CRCs transform from polyp mutations. The computer-aided detection systems can significantly improve the polyp and adenoma detection rate by early colonoscopy screening, thereby lowering the possibility of mutating into CRC. Machine learning and bioinformatics analysis can help screen and identify more CRC biomarkers to provide the basis for non-invasive screening. The Convolutional neural networks can assist in reading histopathologic tissue images, reducing the experience difference among doctors. Various studies have shown that AI-based high-level auxiliary diagnostic systems can significantly improve the readability of medical images and help clinicians make more accurate diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. Moreover, Robotic surgery systems such as da Vinci have been more and more commonly used to treat CRC patients, according to their precise operating performance. The application of AI in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has further improved the treatment and efficacy evaluation of CRC. In addition, AI represented by deep learning in gene sequencing research offers a new treatment option. All of these things have seen that AI has a promising prospect in the era of precision medicine.

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.

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.

Effects of ai-assisted colonoscopy on adenoma miss rate/adenoma detection rate: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy can detect colorectal adenomas and reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer, but there are still many missing diagnoses. Artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy (AIAC) can effectively reduce the rate of missed diagnosis and improve the detection rate of adenoma, but its clinical application is still unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the adenoma missed detection rate (AMR) and the adenoma detection rate (ADR) by artificial colonoscopy.

METHODS

Conduct a comprehensive literature search using the PubMed, Medline database, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. This meta-analysis followed the direction of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the preferred reporting item for systematic review and meta-analysis. The random effect model was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 12 articles were eventually included in the study. Computer aided detection (CADe) significantly decreased AMR compared with the control group (137/1039, 13.2% vs 304/1054, 28.8%; OR,0.39; 95% CI, 0.26-0.59; P < .05). Similarly, there was statistically significant difference in ADR between the CADe group and control group, respectively (1835/5041, 36.4% vs 1309/4553, 28.7%; OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.39-1.71; P < .05). The advanced adenomas missed rate and detection rate in CADe group was not statistically significant when compared with the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

AIAC can effectively reduce AMR and improve ADR, especially small adenomas. Therefore, this method is worthy of clinical application. However, due to the limitations of the number and quality of the included studies, more in-depth studies are needed in the field of AIAC in the future.

Artificial intelligence in colonoscopy: A review on the current status

Artificial intelligence has become an increasingly hot topic in the last several years, and it has also gained its way into the medical field. In recent years, the application of artificial intelligence in the gastroenterology field has been of increasing interest, particularly in the colonoscopy setting. Novel technologies such as deep neural networks have enabled real‐time computer‐aided polyp detection and diagnosis during colonoscopy. This might lead to increased performance of endoscopists as well as potentially reducing the costs of unnecessary polypectomies of hyperplastic polyps. Newly published prospective trials studying computer‐aided detection showed that the assistance of artificial intelligence significantly increased the detection of polyps and non‐advanced adenomas approximately by 10%, while three tandem randomized control trials proved that the adenoma miss rate was significantly reduced (e.g., 13.8% vs. 36.7% in one Japanese multicenter trial). Promising results have also been shown in prospective single‐arm trials on computer‐aided polyp diagnosis, but the evidence is insufficient to reach a conclusion.

Artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy: a narrative review of current data and clinical applications

Colonoscopy is the reference standard procedure for the prevention and diagnosis of colorectal cancer, which is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths in Singapore. Artificial intelligence systems are automated, objective and reproducible. Artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy has recently been introduced into clinical practice as a clinical decision support tool. This review article provides a summary of the current published data and discusses ongoing research and current clinical applications of artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy.