Cited by 124Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionAI in cancer detectionColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments

Reducing adenoma miss rate of colonoscopy assisted by artificial intelligence: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Kamba, Shunsuke, Tamai, Naoto, Saitoh, Iduru, Matsui, Hiroaki, Horiuchi, Hideka, Kobayashi, Masakuni, Sakamoto, Taku, Ego, Mai +7 more·2021·Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract

Background We have developed the computer-aided detection (CADe) system using an original deep learning algorithm based on a convolutional neural network for assisting endoscopists in detecting colorectal lesions during colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to clarify whether adenoma miss rate (AMR) could be reduced with CADe assistance during screening and surveillance colonoscopy. Methods This study was a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Patients aged 40 to 80 years who were referred for colorectal screening or surveillance at four sites in Japan were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to either the "standard colonoscopy (SC)-first group" or the "CADe-first group" to undergo a back-to-back tandem procedure. Tandem colonoscopies were performed on the same day for each participant by the same endoscopist in a preassigned order. All polyps detected in each pass were histopathologically diagnosed after biopsy or resection. Results A total of 358 patients were enrolled and 179 patients were assigned to the SC-first group or CADe-first group. The AMR of the CADe-first group was significantly lower than that of the SC-first group (13.8% vs. 36.7%, P Conclusion Our study results first showed a reduction in the AMR when assisting with CADe based on deep learning in a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00535-021-01808-w

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 32 · Cited by 124

Authors
Kamba, S., Tamai, N., Saitoh, I., Matsui, H., Horiuchi, H., Kobayashi, M., Sakamoto, T., Ego, M., Fukuda, A., Tonouchi, A., Shimahara, Y., Nishikawa, M., Nishino, H., Saito, Y., & Sumiyama, K.
Affiliations
  • Jikei University School of Medicine (JP)
  • National Cancer Center Hospital (JP)
Corresponding author
Kamba, Shunsuke
Venue
Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
2021-07-03
Volume
56
Issue
8
Pages
746-757
ISSN
  • 0944-1174 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-5922
OpenAlex
W3178851191
Cited by
124
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 3
FWCI
7.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Gastroenterology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (18ck0106272h0002)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Keywords
computer-aided detection, colonoscopy, colorectal adenoma, adenoma miss rate, deep learning, convolutional neural networks, colorectal polyps, sessile serrated lesions, colorectal cancer screening, surveillance colonoscopy, adenoma detection rate
MeSH terms
Adenoma, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Artificial Intelligence, Colonoscopy, Female, Humans, Japan, Male, Middle Aged, Early Detection of Cancer, Robotic Surgical Procedures

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review