Cited by 22Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionAI in cancer detectionAdvanced Neural Network Applications

Polyp characterization using deep learning and a publicly accessible polyp video database

Open access
Kader, Rawen, Cid‐Mejias, Anton, Brandao, Patrick, Islam, Shahraz, Hebbar, Sanjith, Puyal, Juana González‐Bueno, Ahmad, Omer F., Hussein, Mohamed +6 more·2023·Digestive Endoscopy

Abstract

Objectives: Convolutional neural networks (CNN) for computer‐aided diagnosis of polyps are often trained using high‐quality still images in a single chromoendoscopy imaging modality with sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) often excluded. This study developed a CNN from videos to classify polyps as adenomatous or nonadenomatous using standard narrow‐band imaging (NBI) and NBI‐near focus (NBI‐NF) and created a publicly accessible polyp video database. Methods: We trained a CNN with 16,832 high and moderate quality frames from 229 polyp videos (56 SSLs). It was evaluated with 222 polyp videos (36 SSLs) across two test‐sets. Test‐set I consists of 14,320 frames (157 polyps, 111 diminutive). Test‐set II, which is publicly accessible, 3317 video frames (65 polyps, 41 diminutive), which was benchmarked with three expert and three nonexpert endoscopists. Results: Sensitivity for adenoma characterization was 91.6% in test‐set I and 89.7% in test‐set II. Specificity was 91.9% and 88.5%. Sensitivity for diminutive polyps was 89.9% and 87.5%; specificity 90.5% and 88.2%. In NBI‐NF, sensitivity was 89.4% and 89.5%, with a specificity of 94.7% and 83.3%. In NBI, sensitivity was 85.3% and 91.7%, with a specificity of 87.5% and 90.0%, respectively. The CNN achieved preservation and incorporation of valuable endoscopic innovations (PIVI)‐1 and PIVI‐2 thresholds for each test‐set. In the benchmarking of test‐set II, the CNN was significantly more accurate than nonexperts (13.8% difference [95% confidence interval 3.2–23.6], P = 0.01) with no significant difference with experts. Conclusions: A single CNN can differentiate adenomas from SSLs and hyperplastic polyps in both NBI and NBI‐NF. A publicly accessible NBI polyp video database was created and benchmarked.

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 · 10.1111/den.14500

Cites

1 of 1 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: 25

  1. [1]Rutter MD, East J, Rees CJ et al. British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/Public Health England post‐polypectomy and post‐colorectal cancer resection surveillance guidelines. Gut 2020; 69: 201– 23. 31776230 PMC6984062
  2. [2]Bisschops R, East JE, Hassan C et al. Advanced imaging for detection and differentiation of colorectal neoplasia: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline – update 2019. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 1155– 79. 31711241
  3. [3]Rex DK, Kahi C, O'Brien M et al. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy preservation and incorporation of valuable endoscopic innovations (PIVI) on real‐time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 419– 22. 21353837
  4. [4]Rex DK. Can we do resect and discard with AI‐assisted colon polyp ‘optical biopsy’? Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 22: 52– 5.
  5. [5]Ponugoti PL, Cummings OW, Rex DK. Risk of cancer in small and diminutive colorectal polyps. Dig Liver Dis 2017; 49: 34– 7. 27443490
  6. [7]Ladabaum U, Fioritto A, Mitani A et al. Real‐time optical biopsy of colon polyps with narrow band imaging in community practice does not yet meet key thresholds for clinical decisions. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 81– 91. 23041328 PMC5518757
  7. [8]Jin EH, Lee D, Bae JH et al. Improved accuracy in optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps using convolutional neural networks with visual explanations. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 2169– 79. 32119927
  8. [9]Zachariah R, Samarasena J, Luba D et al. Prediction of polyp pathology using convolutional neural networks achieves “resect and discard” thresholds. Am J Gastroenterol 2020; 115: 138– 44. 31651444 PMC6940529
  9. [10]Rodriguez‐Diaz E, Baffy G, Lo WK et al. Real‐time artificial intelligence–based histologic classification of colorectal polyps with augmented visualization. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 93: 662– 70. 32949567
  10. [11]Byrne MF, Chapados N, Soudan F et al. Real‐time differentiation of adenomatous and hyperplastic diminutive colorectal polyps during analysis of unaltered videos of standard colonoscopy using a deep learning model. Gut 2019; 68: 94– 100. 29066576 PMC6839831
  11. [12]Chen P, Lin M, Lai M et al. Accurate classification of diminutive colorectal polyps using computer‐aided analysis. Gastroenterology 2018; 154: 568– 75. 29042219
  12. [13]Kader R, Hadjinicolaou A, Georgiades F et al. Optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps using convolutional neural networks. World J Gastroenterol 2021; 27: 5908– 18. 34629808 PMC8475008
  13. [14]Nagtegaal ID, Odze RD, Klimstra D et al. The 2019 WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. Histopathology 2020; 76: 182– 8. 31433515 PMC7003895
  14. [15]Kudo S, Misawa M, Mori Y et al. Artificial intelligence‐assisted system improves endoscopic identification of colorectal neoplasms. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 18: 1874– 81. 31525512
  15. [16]Gupta S, Lieberman D, Anderson JC et al. Recommendations for follow‐up after colonoscopy and force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 1131– 53. 32044092 PMC7672705
  16. [17]Biffi C, Salvagnini P, Dinh NN et al. A novel AI device for real‐time optical characterization of colorectal polyps. NPJ Digit Med 2022; 5: 84. 35773468 PMC9247164
  17. [18]Mori Y, Berzin TM, Kudo S. Artificial intelligence for early gastric cancer: Early promise and the path ahead. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 816– 7. 30902205
  18. [19]Minegishi Y, Kudo SE, Miyata Y et al. Comprehensive diagnostic performance of real‐time characterization of colorectal lesions using an artificial intelligence–assisted system: A prospective study. Gastroenterology 2022; 163: 323– 5. 35398043
  19. [20]Podlasek J, Heesch M, Podlasek R, Kilisiński W, Filip R. Real‐time deep learning‐based colorectal polyp localization on clinical video footage achievable with a wide array of hardware configurations. Endosc Int Open 2021; 9: E741– 8. 33937516 PMC8062241
  20. [21]Van Der Zander QEW, Schreuder RM, Fonollà R et al. Optical diagnosis of colorectal polyp images using a newly developed computer‐aided diagnosis system (CADx) compared with intuitive optical diagnosis. Endoscopy 2021; 53: 1219– 26. 33368056
  21. [22]Ahmad OF, Mori Y, Misawa M et al. Establishing key research questions for the implementation of artificial intelligence in colonoscopy: A modified Delphi method. Endoscopy 2021; 53: 893– 901. 33167043 PMC8390295
  22. [23]Misawa M, Kudo S, Mori Y et al. Development of a computer‐aided detection system for colonoscopy and a publicly accessible large colonoscopy video database (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 93: 960– 7. 32745531
  23. [24]Mesejo P, Pizarro D, Abergel A et al. Computer‐aided classification of gastrointestinal lesions in regular colonoscopy. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2016; 35: 2051– 63. 28005009
  24. [25]Sánchez‐Peralta LF, Pagador JB, Picón A et al. Piccolo white‐light and narrow‐band imaging colonoscopic dataset: A performance comparative of models and datasets. Appl Sci 2020; 10: 8501.
  25. [26]Lagendijk RL, Biemond J. Basic methods for image restoration and identification. In: Bovik A (ed). The Essential Guide to Image Processing, Cambridge: Academic Press, 2009; 323– 48.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kader, R., Cid‐Mejias, A., Brandao, P., Islam, S., Hebbar, S., Puyal, J. G., Ahmad, O. F., Hussein, M., Toth, D., Mountney, P., Seward, E., Vega, R., Stoyanov, D., & Lovat, L. B.
Affiliations
  • University College Hospital (GB)
  • Odin Vision Ltd London UK
  • Wellcome / EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (GB)
Corresponding author
Kader, Rawen
Venue
Digestive Endoscopy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-01-18
Volume
35
Issue
5
Pages
645-655
ISSN
  • 0915-5635 (ISSN-L)
  • 1443-1661
OpenAlex
W4311704385
Cited by
22
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5
FWCI
1.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Digestive Endoscopy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Innovate UK (26673)
  • Wellcome Trust (203145Z/16/Z)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
colorectal polyps, sessile serrated lesions, adenomatous polyps, hyperplastic polyps, narrow-band imaging, computer-aided diagnosis, convolutional neural networks, diminutive polyps, chromoendoscopy
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Adenoma, Colonic Polyps, Colonoscopy, Humans, Colorectal Neoplasms, Narrow Band Imaging

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