Artificial Intelligence and Endoscopist Diagnostic Agreement as a Framework for Colorectal Polyp Optical Diagnosis Implementation
Abstract
Aims Artificial intelligence (AI) has enabled the development of computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) systems which offer real-time endoscopic pathology prediction of colorectal polyps [ 1 ]. However, the clinical benefit of CADx assisted optical diagnosis remains questionable due to limited diagnostic improvement compared to CADx unassisted optical diagnosis [ 2 ]. This study aimed to assess diagnostic performance of a novel CADx implementation framework in which the high/low endoscopist confidence-based approach was replaced by a CADx and endoscopist agreement-based approach. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of a large prospective cohort undergoing optical polyp diagnosis at our center. Polyps measuring≤5mm (diminutive) with available CADx unassisted and CADx assisted optical polyp diagnosis documentation were included in our analysis. For CADx assisted cases, first the CADx diagnostic output was documented, followed by the endoscopist’s final diagnosis after seeing the CADx output. Only cases where endoscopist and CADx agreed on a diagnosis were retained. Primary outcome was sensitivity for adenoma diagnosis of CADx assisted optical diagnosis based on the agreement framework versus CADx unassisted optical diagnosis, using pathology results as a reference standard. Secondary outcomes included accuracy, diagnostic characteristics, and optical diagnosis surveillance interval agreement with pathology-based United States Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) guidelines. Results…
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?
The clinical utility of AI-generated CADx predictions depends on the endoscopist's ability to interpret and appropriately act upon them.
“The clinical utility of these AI-generated predictions ultimately depends on the endoscopist’s ability to interpret and appropriately act upon them.4”
From Human–machine interaction in optical polyp diagnosis: decision-making after CADx polyp diagnosis (2026) · cites this paper as [4]
Cites
Hassan, C., Misawa, M., Rizkala, T., Mori, Y., Sultan, S., Facciorusso, A., Antonelli, G., Spadaccini, M., Houwen, B. B. S. L., Rondonotti, E., et al. (2024) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m23-2865 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Human–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
- Oleksiw, M., Djinbachian, R., & Von Renteln, D.
- Affiliations
- Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CA)
- CHUM – Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada
- Venue
- Endoscopy
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- Published
- 2025-03
- Volume
- 57
- ISSN
- 0013-726X (ISSN-L)
- 1438-8812
- OpenAlex
- W4408894938
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 5.78
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Endoscopy (publishedVersion)
- 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
- colorectal polyps, computer-aided diagnosis, optical diagnostics, diminutive polyps, adenoma detection, surveillance interval, diagnostic accuracy, artificial intelligence in endoscopy, polyp classification
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