Simultaneous detection and characterization of diminutive polyps with the use of artificial intelligence during colonoscopy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mori Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6318126 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Simultaneous detection and characterization of diminutive polyps with the use of artificial intelligence during colonoscopy.
Mori Yuichi Y Kudo Shin-Ei SE Misawa Masashi M Mori Kensaku K
VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 20190101 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is used to solve the problem of missed diagnosis of polyps in colonoscopy, which has been proved to improve the detection rate of adenomas. The aim of this review was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of AI-assisted detection and classification of polyps in colonoscopy.MethodsThe literature search was undertaken on 4 electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library). The inclusion criteria were as follows: studies reporting AI-assisted detection and classification of polyps; studies containing patients, images, or videos receiving AI-assisted diagnosis; studies which included AI-assisted diagnosis and reported classification based on histopathology; and studies providing accurate diagnostic data. Non-English language studies, case-reports, reviews, meeting abstracts and so on were excluded. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 scale was used to evaluate the quality of literature and the Stata 13.0 software was used to perform meta-analysis.ResultsTwenty-six articles were included with all of medium quality. Meta-analysis showed none of literature had any obvious publication bias. The application of AI in detection of colorectal polyps achieved a sensitivity of 0.95 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89-0.98] and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.79-0.82). In the AI-assisted classification, the sensitivity was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88-0.95) with a specificity of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.71-0.89) and an AUC of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96). For the classification of diminutive polyps, the AI-assisted technique yielded a sensitivity of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.94-0.97), a specificity of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.74-0.95), and an AUC of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95-0.98). For AI-assisted classification under magnifying endoscopy, the sensitivity was 0.954 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96) with a specificity of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.80-0.99) and an AUC of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95-0.98).DiscussionThe AI-assisted technique demonstrates impressive accuracy for the detection and characterization of colorectal polyps and can be expected to be a novel auxiliary diagnosis method. Our study has inevitable limitations including heterogeneity due to different AI systems and the inability to further analyze the specificity and sensitivity of AI for different types of endoscopes.
| S-EPMC8667153 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Artificial intelligence is a promising tool that may have a role in characterizing colon epithelial lesions (CADx), helping to get a reliable optical diagnosis regardless of the endoscopist experience. Performances of the different CADx systems are variable but it seems that, in most cases, high accuracy and sensitivities are achieved. However, these CADx systems have been developed and validated using still pictures or videos, and a real-world accurate test is lacking. No clinical trials have tested this technology in clinical practice and, therefore, performance in real colonoscopies, practical problems, applicability, and cost are unknown.
| 2731946 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Background and study aimsThe aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of an intelligent endoscopy module for computer-assisted detection and characterization (CADe/CADx) compared with standard practice, from a Spanish National Health System perspective.MethodsA Markov model was designed to estimate total costs, life years gained (LYG), and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a lifetime horizon with annual cycles. A hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients eligible for colonoscopy (mean age 61.32 years) was distributed between Markov states according to polyp size, location, and histology based on national screening program data. CADe/CADx efficacy was determined based on adenoma miss rates and natural disease evolution was simulated according to annual transition probabilities. Detected polyp management involved polypectomy and histopathology in standard practice, whereas with CADe/CADx leave-in-situ strategy was applied for ≤ 5 mm rectosigmoid non-adenomas and resect-and-discard strategy for the rest of ≤ 5mm polyps. Unit costs (€,2024) included the diagnostic procedure and polyp and colorectal cancer (CRC) management. A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. Model inputs were validated by an expert panel.ResultsCADe/CADx was more effective (16.37 LYG and 14.32 QALYs) than standard practice (16.33 LYG and 14.27 QALYs) over a lifetime horizon. Total cost per patient was €2,300.76 with CADe/CADx and €2,508.75 with colonoscopy alone. In a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients, CADe/CADx avoided 173 polypectomies, 370 histopathologies, and 7 CRC cases. Sensitivity analyses confirmed model robustness.ConclusionsThe results of this analysis suggest that CADe/CADx would result in a dominant strategy versus standard practice in patients undergoing colonoscopy in Spain.
| S-EPMC11922311 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims With the advent of deep neural networks (DNN) learning, the field of artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly evolving. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCT) have investigated the influence of integrating AI in colonoscopy and its impact on adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and polyp detection rates (PDRs). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to reliably assess if the impact is statistically significant enough to warrant the adoption of AI -assisted colonoscopy (AIAC) in clinical practice. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings to identify RCTs that compared outcomes between AIAC and conventional colonoscopy (CC). The primary outcome was ADR. The secondary outcomes were PDR and total withdrawal time (WT). Results Six RCTs (comparing AIAC vs CC) with 5058 individuals undergoing average-risk screening colonoscopy were included in the meta-analysis. ADR was significantly higher with AIAC compared to CC (33.7 % versus 22.9 %; odds ratio (OR) 1.76, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.55-2.00; I 2 = 28 %). Similarly, PDR was significantly higher with AIAC (45.6 % versus 30.6 %; OR 1.90, 95 %CI, 1.68-2.15, I 2 = 0 %). The overall WT was higher for AIAC compared to CC (mean difference [MD] 0.46 (0.00-0.92) minutes, I 2 = 94 %). Conclusions There is an increase in adenoma and polyp detection with the utilization of AIAC.
| S-EPMC7969136 | biostudies-literature
Project description:COLO-DETECT is a clinical trial to evaluate whether an Artificial Intelligence device ("GI Genius", manufactured by Medtronic) can identify more polyps (pre-cancerous growths of the bowel lining) during colonoscopy (large bowel camera test) than during colonoscopy without it.
| 2365002 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsUsing 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).FindingsThis 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%).InterpretationAI-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.FundingThis 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).
| S-EPMC10698672 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) assistance has been considered as a promising way to improve colonoscopic polyp detection, but there are limited prospective studies on real-time use of AI systems.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial of patients undergoing colonoscopy at six centers. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to conventional colonoscopy (control group) or AI-assisted colonoscopy (AI group). AI assistance was our newly developed AI system for real-time colonoscopic polyp detection. Primary outcome is polyp detection rate (PDR). Secondary outcomes include polyps per positive patient (PPP), polyps per colonoscopy (PPC), and non-first polyps per colonoscopy (PPC-Plus).ResultsA total of 2352 patients were included in the final analysis. Compared with the control, AI group did not show significant increment in PDR (38.8% vs. 36.2%, p = 0.183), but its PPC-Plus was significantly higher (0.5 vs. 0.4, p < 0.05). In addition, AI group detected more diminutive polyps (76.0% vs. 68.8%, p < 0.01) and flat polyps (5.9% vs. 3.3%, p < 0.05). The effects varied somewhat between centers. In further logistic regression analysis, AI assistance independently contributed to the increment of PDR, and the impact was more pronounced for male endoscopists, shorter insertion time but longer withdrawal time, and elderly patients with larger waist circumference.ConclusionThe intervention of AI plays a limited role in overall polyp detection, but increases detection of easily missed polyps; ChiCTR.org.cn number, ChiCTR1800015607.
| S-EPMC8525182 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives: Multiple meta-analyses which investigated the comparative efficacy and safety of artificial intelligence (AI)-aid colonoscopy (AIC) vs. conventional colonoscopy (CC) in the detection of polyp and adenoma have been published. However, a definitive conclusion has not yet been generated. This systematic review selected from discordant meta-analyses to draw a definitive conclusion about whether AIC is better than CC for the detection of polyp and adenoma. Methods: We comprehensively searched potentially eligible literature in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and China National Knowledgement Infrastructure (CNKI) databases from their inceptions until to April 2021. Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument was used to assess the methodological quality. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was used to assess the reporting quality. Two investigators independently used the Jadad decision algorithm to select high-quality meta-analyses which summarized the best available evidence. Results: Seven meta-analyses met our selection criteria finally. AMSTAR score ranged from 8 to 10, and PRISMA score ranged from 23 to 26. According to the Jadad decision algorithm, two high-quality meta-analyses were selected. These two meta-analyses suggested that AIC was superior to CC for colonoscopy outcomes, especially for polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). Conclusion: Based on the best available evidence, we conclude that AIC should be preferentially selected for the route screening of colorectal lesions because it has potential value of increasing the polyp and adenoma detection. However, the continued improvement of AIC in differentiating the shape and pathology of colorectal lesions is needed.
| S-EPMC8792899 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundColonoscopy reduces the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) by allowing detection and resection of neoplastic polyps. Evidence shows that many small polyps are missed on a single colonoscopy. There has been a successful adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to tackle the issues around missed polyps and as tools to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR).ObjectiveThe aim of this review was to examine the diagnostic accuracy of AI-based technologies in assessing colorectal polyps.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was undertaken using the databases of Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Studies reporting the use of computer-aided diagnosis for polyp detection or characterization during colonoscopy were included. Independent proportions and their differences were calculated and pooled through DerSimonian and Laird random-effects modeling.ResultsA total of 48 studies were included. The meta-analysis showed a significant increase in pooled polyp detection rate in patients with the use of AI for polyp detection during colonoscopy compared with patients who had standard colonoscopy (odds ratio [OR] 1.75, 95% CI 1.56-1.96; P<.001). When comparing patients undergoing colonoscopy with the use of AI to those without, there was also a significant increase in ADR (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.32-1.77; P<.001).ConclusionsWith the aid of machine learning, there is potential to improve ADR and, consequently, reduce the incidence of CRC. The current generation of AI-based systems demonstrate impressive accuracy for the detection and characterization of colorectal polyps. However, this is an evolving field and before its adoption into a clinical setting, AI systems must prove worthy to patients and clinicians.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020169786; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020169786.
| S-EPMC8319784 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) using deep learning methods for polyp detection (CADe) and characterization (CADx) is on the verge of clinical application. CADe already implied its potential use in randomized controlled trials. Further efforts are needed to take CADx to the next level of development.AimThis work aims to give an overview of the current status of AI in colonoscopy, without going into too much technical detail.MethodsA literature search to identify important studies exploring the use of AI in colonoscopy was performed.ResultsThis review focuses on AI performance in screening colonoscopy summarizing the first prospective trials for CADe, the state of research in CADx as well as current limitations of those systems and legal issues.
| S-EPMC8259277 | biostudies-literature