Computer-aided detection-assisted colonoscopy: classification and relevance of false positives
Abstract
Background and aims False positive (FP) results by computer-aided detection (CADe) hamper the efficiency of colonoscopy by extending examination time. Our aim was to develop a classification of the causes and clinical relevance of CADe FPs, and to assess the relative distribution of FPs in a real-life setting. Methods In a post-hoc analysis of a randomized trial comparing colonoscopy with and without CADe (NCT: 04079478), we extracted 40 CADe colonoscopy videos. Using a modified Delphi process, 4 expert endoscopists identified the main domains for the reasons and clinical relevance of FPs. Then, 2 expert endoscopists manually examined each FP and classified it according to the proposed domains. The analysis was limited to the withdrawal phase. Results The 2 main domains for the causes of CADe FPs were identified as artifacts due to either the mucosal wall or bowel content, and clinical relevance was defined as the time spent on FPs and the FP rate per minute. The mean number of FPs per colonoscopy was 27.3 ± 13.1, of which 24 ± 12 (88%) and 3.2 ± 2.6 (12%) were due to artifacts in the bowel wall and bowel content, respectively. Of the 27.3 FPs per colonoscopy, 1.6 (5.7%) required additional exploration time of 4.8 ± 6.2 seconds per FP (ie, 0.7% of the mean withdrawal time). In detail, 15 (24.2%), 33 (53.2%), and 14 (22.6%) FPs were classified as being of mild, moderate, or severe clinical relevance. The rate of FPs per minute of withdrawal time was 2.4 ± 1.2, and was higher f…
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?
Human experts can readily recognize AI false positives as such without any delay in the colonoscopic procedure in most cases.
“While false positives are not rare occurrences (e.g., ∼27 per colonoscopy), human experts can readily recognize them as such without any delay in the colonoscopic procedure in most cases.”
From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [77]
Temporal persistence of the AI signal appears promising as a cue for segregating AI outputs into likely true and likely false, as longer persistence (e.g., 200 ms) is associated with higher likelihood of AI signal corresponding to a true lesion.
“The temporal persistence of the AI signal [77] appears to be a promising candidate, as a longer persistence (e.g., 200 ms) is associated with a higher likelihood of the AI signal corresponding to a true lesion.”
From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [77]
False positives are not rare (e.g., ~27 per colonoscopy).
“While false positives are not rare occurrences (e.g., ∼27 per colonoscopy), human experts can readily recognize them as such without any delay in the colonoscopic procedure in most cases.”
From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [77]
Cites
Mori, Y., Kudo, S.-E., Misawa, M., Saito, Y., Ikematsu, H., Hotta, K., Ohtsuka, K., Urushibara, F., Kataoka, S., Ogawa, Y., et al. (2018) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-0249 · Cited by 509 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy
Introzzi, L., Zonca, J., Cabitza, F., Cherubini, P., & Reverberi, C. (2024) · Digestive and Liver Disease · doi:10.1016/j.dld.2023.10.018 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence-assisted colonoscopy and colorectal cancer screening: Where are we going?
Spadaccini, M., Troya, J., Khalaf, K., Facciorusso, A., Maselli, R., Hann, A., & Repici, A. (2024) · Digestive and Liver Disease · doi:10.1016/j.dld.2024.01.203 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Self-citationHuman–machine interaction in optical polyp diagnosis: decision-making after CADx polyp diagnosis
Dubois, D., Jalal, Y., Pohl, H., Rex, D. K., Hassan, C., Djinbachian, R., Oleksiw, M., Michal, V., & von Renteln, D. (2026) · Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwag016
Self-citation
- Authors
- Hassan, C., Badalamenti, M., Maselli, R., Correale, L., Iannone, A., Radaelli, F., Rondonotti, E., Ferrara, E., Spadaccini, M., Alkandari, A., Fugazza, A., Anderloni, A., Galtieri, P. A., Pellegatta, G., Carrara, S., Di Leo, M., Craviotto, V., Lamonaca, L., Lorenzetti, R., Andrealli, A., Antonelli, G., Wallace, M., Sharma, P., Rösch, T., & Repici, A.
- Affiliations
- IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital (IT)
- University of Bari Aldo Moro (IT)
- Ospedale Valduce (IT)
- Humanitas University (IT)
- Mayo Clinic in Florida (US)
- United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
- Universität Hamburg (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Repici, Alessandro
- ORCID
- Hassan, Cesare
- Badalamenti, Matteo
- Maselli, Roberta
- Correale, Loredana
- Iannone, Andrea
- Radaelli, Franco
- Rondonotti, Emanuele
- Ferrara, Elisa
- Spadaccini, Marco
- Alkandari, Asma
- Fugazza, Alessandro
- Anderloni, Andrea
- Galtieri, Piera Alessia
- Pellegatta, Gaia
- Carrara, Silvia
- Craviotto, Vincenzo
- Lamonaca, Laura
- Lorenzetti, Roberto
- Antonelli, Giulio
- Wallace, Michael
- Sharma, Prateek
- Rösch, Thomas
- Repici, Alessandro
- Venue
- Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-10
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 900-904.e4
- ISSN
- 0016-5107 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3034877294
- Cited by
- 81
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 5
- FWCI
- 4.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Boston Scientific Corporation
- Olympus
- Medtronic
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
- Keywords
- computer-aided detection, colonoscopy, false positives, colorectal cancer screening, Delphi method
- MeSH terms
- Colonoscopy, Humans
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