Cost savings in colonoscopy with artificial intelligence-aided polyp diagnosis: an add-on analysis of a clinical trial (with video)
Open accessAbstract
Background and aims Artificial intelligence (AI) is being implemented in colonoscopy practice, but no study has investigated whether AI is cost saving. We aimed to quantify the cost reduction using AI as an aid in the optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps. Methods This study is an add-on analysis of a clinical trial that investigated the performance of AI for differentiating colorectal polyps (ie, neoplastic versus non-neoplastic). We included all patients with diminutive (≤5 mm) rectosigmoid polyps in the analyses. The average colonoscopy cost was compared for 2 scenarios: (1) a diagnose-and-leave strategy supported by the AI prediction (ie, diminutive rectosigmoid polyps were not removed when predicted as non-neoplastic), and (2) a resect-all-polyps strategy. Gross annual costs for colonoscopies were also calculated based on the number and reimbursement of colonoscopies conducted under public health insurances in 4 countries. Results Overall, 207 patients with 250 diminutive rectosigmoid polyps (104 neoplastic, 144 non-neoplastic, and 2 indeterminate) were included. AI correctly differentiated neoplastic polyps with 93.3% sensitivity, 95.2% specificity, and 95.2% negative predictive value. Thus, 105 polyps were removed and 145 were left under the diagnose-and-leave strategy, which was estimated to reduce the average colonoscopy cost and the gross annual reimbursement for colonoscopies by 18.9% and US$149.2 million in Japan, 6.9% and US$12.3 million in England, 7.6% and US$1.1 million in Norway, and 10.9% and US$85.2 million in the United States, respectively, compared with the resect-all-polyps strategy. Conclusions The use of AI to enable the diagnose-and-leave strategy results in substantial cost reductions for colonoscopy.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Mori et al. emphasized that maintaining AI implementation costs at approximately $19 per colonoscopy procedure is crucial for achieving cost-savings.
“Mori et al.20 emphasized that maintaining AI implementation costs at approximately $19 per colonoscopy procedure is crucial for achieving cost-savings.”
From Systematic review of cost effectiveness and budget impact of artificial intelligence in healthcare (2025) · cites this paper as Mori et al.20
Studies in AF screening, colonoscopy, and medication management consistently reported low ICERs and substantial per-patient cost reductions relative to conventional care.
“studies in AF screening26, colonoscopy20, and medication management27 consistently reported low ICERs and substantial per-patient cost reductions relative to conventional care.”
From Systematic review of cost effectiveness and budget impact of artificial intelligence in healthcare (2025) · cites this paper as [20]
Mori et al. reported annual national savings of $149.2 million in Japan and $85.2 million in the United States from an AI-assisted colonoscopy strategy.
“Mori et al.20 reported annual national savings of $149.2 million in Japan and $85.2 million in the United States from an AI-assisted colonoscopy strategy”
From Systematic review of cost effectiveness and budget impact of artificial intelligence in healthcare (2025) · cites this paper as Mori et al.20
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 155
- Authors
- Mori, Y., Kudo, S.-E., East, J. E., Rastogi, A., Bretthauer, M., Misawa, M., Sekiguchi, M., Matsuda, T., Saito, Y., Ikematsu, H., Hotta, K., Ohtsuka, K., Kudo, T., & Mori, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Oslo (NO)
- SHOWA Medical University Northern Yokohama Hospital (JP)
- John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
- University of Kansas Medical Center (US)
- Oslo University Hospital (NO)
- National Cancer Centre Japan (JP)
- National Cancer Center Hospital (JP)
- Shizuoka Cancer Center (JP)
- Tokyo Medical and Dental University (JP)
- Nagoya University (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Mori, Yuichi
- ORCID
- Venue
- Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-10
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 905-911.e1
- ISSN
- 0016-5107 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3013146603
- Cited by
- 155
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 15 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 8.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- ora.ox.ac.uk
- Licence
- Locations
- Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Oxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Japan Society for the Promotion of Science London
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence, colonoscopy, colorectal polyps, cost reduction, polypectomy, reimbursement, public health insurance, Japan, England, Norway, United States
- MeSH terms
- Artificial Intelligence, Colonic Polyps, Colonoscopy, England, Humans, Japan, Colorectal Neoplasms, Cost Savings
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