Cited by 86Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionAI in cancer detectionColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments

Evaluation of a Real-Time Computer-Aided Polyp Detection System during Screening Colonoscopy: AI-DETECT Study

Ahmad, Ahmir, Wilson, Ana, Haycock, Adam, Humphries, Adam, Monahan, Kevin, Suzuki, Noriko, Thomas-Gibson, Siwan, Vance, Margaret +4 more·2023·Endoscopy

Abstract

Abstract Background Polyp detection and resection during colonoscopy significantly reduce long-term colorectal cancer risk. Computer-aided detection (CADe) may increase polyp identification but has undergone limited clinical evaluation. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of CADe at colonoscopy within a bowel cancer screening program (BCSP). Methods This prospective, randomized controlled trial involved all eight screening-accredited colonoscopists at an English National Health Service (NHS) BCSP center (February 2020 to December 2021). Patients were randomized to CADe or standard colonoscopy. Patients meeting NHS criteria for bowel cancer screening were included. The primary outcome of interest was polyp detection rate (PDR). Results 658 patients were invited and 44 were excluded. A total of 614 patients were randomized to CADe (n = 308) or standard colonoscopy (n = 306); 35 cases were excluded from the per-protocol analysis due to poor bowel preparation (n = 10), an incomplete procedure (n = 24), or a data issue (n = 1). Endocuff Vision was frequently used and evenly distributed (71.7 % CADe and 69.2 % standard). On intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, there was a borderline significant difference in PDR (85.7 % vs. 79.7 %; P = 0.05) but no significant difference in adenoma detection rate (ADR; 71.4 % vs. 65.0 %; P = 0.09) for CADe vs. standard groups, respectively. On per-protocol analysis, no significant difference was observed in these rates. There was no significant difference in procedure times. Conclusions In high-performing colonoscopists in a BCSP who routinely used Endocuff Vision, CADe improved PDR but not ADR. CADe appeared to have limited benefit in a BCSP setting where procedures are performed by experienced colonoscopists.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1055/a-1966-0661

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?

  • A few studies have reported no improvement in quality metrics for in vivo endoscopy with versus without AI assistance.

    “While reviews and meta-analyses provide robust support for the widespread adoption of AI in colonoscopy, a few studies have reported no improvement in quality metrics for in vivo endoscopy with versus without AI assistance [89][90][91] .”

    From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [89]

  • Natural language processing increases productivity in clinical oncology by converting unstructured text into analyzable data and standardizing documentation.

    “Natural language processing (NLP) increases productivity in clinical oncology by converting unstructured text into analyzable data and standardizing documentation [41,42,43,44,45,46].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 17 · Cited by 86

Authors
Ahmad, A., Wilson, A., Haycock, A., Humphries, A., Monahan, K., Suzuki, N., Thomas-Gibson, S., Vance, M., Bassett, P., Thiruvilangam, K., Dhillon, A., & Saunders, B. P.
Affiliations
  • St Mark's Hospital (GB)
  • Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St Mark’s Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • Statsconsultancy Ltd, Amersham, United Kingdom
  • Queen Elizabeth Hospital (GB)
Venue
Endoscopy
Published
2022-12-12
Volume
55
Issue
04
Pages
313-319
ISSN
  • 0013-726X (ISSN-L)
  • 1438-8812
OpenAlex
W4311207866
Cited by
86
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 18
FWCI
7.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Endoscopy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, polyp detection, screening colonoscopy, colorectal cancer screening, polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, Endocuff Vision
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Colonic Polyps, Colonoscopy, Computers, Humans, Prospective Studies, State Medicine, Colorectal Neoplasms, 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