Cited by 235Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionAI in cancer detectionColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments

Deep learning computer-aided polyp detection reduces adenoma miss rate: a United States multi-center randomized tandem colonoscopy study (CADeT-CS Trial)

Open access
Glissen Brown, Jeremy R., Mansour, Nabil M., Wang, Pu, Chuchuca, Maria Aguilera, Minchenberg, Scott B., Chandnani, Madhuri, Liu, Lin, Gross, Seth A. +2 more·2022·Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Artificial intelligence-based computer-aided polyp detection (CADe) systems are intended to address the issue of missed polyps during colonoscopy. The effect of CADe during screening and surveillance colonoscopy has not previously been studied in a United States (U.S.) population. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multi-center, single-blind randomized tandem colonoscopy study to evaluate a deep-learning based CADe system (EndoScreener, Shanghai Wision AI, China). Patients were enrolled across 4 U.S. academic medical centers from 2019 through 2020. Patients presenting for colorectal cancer screening or surveillance were randomized to CADe colonoscopy first or high-definition white light (HDWL) colonoscopy first, followed immediately by the other procedure in tandem fashion by the same endoscopist. The primary outcome was adenoma miss rate (AMR), and secondary outcomes included sessile serrated lesion (SSL) miss rate and adenomas per colonoscopy (APC). RESULTS: A total of 232 patients entered the study, with 116 patients randomized to undergo CADe colonoscopy first and 116 patients randomized to undergo HDWL colonoscopy first. After the exclusion of 9 patients, the study cohort included 223 patients. AMR was lower in the CADe-first group compared with the HDWL-first group (20.12% [34/169] vs 31.25% [45/144]; odds ratio [OR], 1.8048; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0780-3.0217; P = .0247). SSL miss rate was lower in the CADe-first group (7.14% [1/14]) vs the HDWL-first group (42.11% [8/19]; P = .0482). First-pass APC was higher in the CADe-first group (1.19 [standard deviation (SD), 2.03] vs 0.90 [SD, 1.55]; P = .0323). First-pass ADR was 50.44% in the CADe-first group and 43.64 % in the HDWL-first group (P = .3091). CONCLUSION: In this U.S. multicenter tandem colonoscopy randomized controlled trial, we demonstrate a decrease in AMR and SSL miss rate and an increase in first-pass APC with the use of a CADe-system when compared with HDWL colonoscopy alone.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.09.009

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Holzwanger EA, Bilal M, Glissen Brown JR, et al. Benchmarking false positive definitions for computer aided polyp detection in colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2021;53:937-940.
  2. Wang P, Xiao X, Glissen Brown JR, et al. Development and validation of a deep-learning algorithm for the detection of polyps during colonoscopy. Nat Biomed Eng 2018;2:741-748.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Glissen Brown, J. R., Mansour, N. M., Wang, P., Chuchuca, M. A., Minchenberg, S. B., Chandnani, M., Liu, L., Gross, S. A., Sengupta, N., & Berzin, T. M.
Affiliations
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences & Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital (CN)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
  • NYU Langone Health (US)
  • University of Chicago (US)
Venue
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-07
Volume
20
Issue
7
Pages
1499-1507.e4
ISSN
1542-3565 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3199688237
Cited by
235
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 65 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 32
FWCI
11.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (12090024)
  • Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (2021SHZDZX0102)
  • Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai (21ZR1431000)
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
deep learning, colonoscopy, adenoma miss rate, colorectal cancer screening, surveillance colonoscopy, sessile serrated lesions, adenoma detection rate, tandem colonoscopy, artificial intelligence in endoscopy, colorectal adenoma, polyp detection, United States population
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Missed Diagnosis, Adenoma, Artificial Intelligence, Colonic Polyps, Colonoscopy, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Humans, Prospective Studies, United States, Colorectal Neoplasms, Single-Blind Method

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