Cited by 209Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionAI in cancer detectionColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments

Artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Open access
Xu, Hong, Tang, Raymond S.Y., Lam, Thomas Y.T., Zhao, Guijun, Lau, James Y.W., Liu, Yunpeng, Wu, Qi, Rong, Long +16 more·2023·Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Abstract

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).

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.2022.07.006

Cites

28 of 28 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. Thomas Y.T. Lam (Data curation: Equal; Formal analysis: Equal; Project administration: Equal; Validation: Equal; Writing -review & editing: Equal) Guijun Zhao (Data curation: Equal; Investigation: Equal)
  2. Joseph J.Y. Sung (Conceptualization: Lead; Data curation: Equal; Investi- gation: Equal; Project administration: Lead; Supervision: Lead; Validation: Lead; Writing -review & editing: Lead)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xu, H., Tang, R. S. Y., Lam, T. Y. T., Zhao, G., Lau, J. Y. W., Liu, Y., Wu, Q., Rong, L., Xu, W., Li, X., Wong, S. H., Cai, S., Wang, J., Liu, G., Ma, T., Liang, X., Mak, J. W. Y., Xu, H., Yuan, P., Cao, T., Li, F., Ye, Z., Shutian, Z., & Sung, J. J. Y.
Affiliations
  • Xiamen University (CN)
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Inner Mongolia People's Hospital (CN)
  • Peking University Cancer Hospital (CN)
  • Peking University First Hospital (CN)
  • First Hospital of Jilin University (CN)
  • Nanyang Technological University (SG)
Corresponding author
Sung, Joseph J.Y.
Venue
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-02
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
337-346.e3
ISSN
1542-3565 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4286257050
Cited by
209
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 79 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 3
FWCI
17.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DR-NTU (Nanyang Technological University) (submittedVersion)
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
AI-assisted colonoscopy, colorectal cancer screening, adenoma detection rate, polyp detection, asymptomatic population, endoscopist experience, colonoscopy withdrawal time, fecal immunochemical test, bowel preparation, advanced adenoma, Hong Kong, China, Mongolia
MeSH terms
Adenoma, Artificial Intelligence, Colonic Polyps, Colonoscopy, Humans, Colorectal Neoplasms, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Early Detection of Cancer

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