Cited by 52Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionAI in cancer detectionColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments

Effect of computer-aided colonoscopy on adenoma miss rates and polyp detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Shah, Sagar, Park, Nathan, Chehade, Nabil El Hage, Chahine, Anastasia, Monachese, Marc, Tiritilli, Amelie, Moosvi, Zain, Ortizo, Ronald +1 more·2023·Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Abstract

Background and Aim: Multiple computer‐aided techniques utilizing artificial intelligence (AI) have been created to improve the detection of polyps during colonoscopy and thereby reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer. While adenoma detection rates (ADR) and polyp detection rates (PDR) are important colonoscopy quality indicators, adenoma miss rates (AMR) may better quantify missed lesions, which can ultimately lead to interval colorectal cancer. The purpose of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to determine the efficacy of computer‐aided colonoscopy (CAC) with respect to AMR, ADR, and PDR in randomized controlled trials. Methods: A comprehensive, systematic literature search was performed across multiple databases in September of 2022 to identify randomized, controlled trials that compared CAC with traditional colonoscopy. Primary outcomes were AMR, ADR, and PDR. Results: Fourteen studies totaling 10 928 patients were included in the final analysis. There was a 65% reduction in the adenoma miss rate with CAC (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25–0.49, P < 0.001, I 2 = 50%). There was a 78% reduction in the sessile serrated lesion miss rate with CAC (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08–0.65, P < 0.01, I 2 = 0%). There was a 52% increase in ADR in the CAC group compared with the control group (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.39–1.67, P = 0.04, I 2 = 47%). There was 93% increase in the number of adenomas > 10 mm detected per colonoscopy with CAC (OR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.18–3.16, P < 0.01, I 2 = 0%). Conclusions: The results of the present study demonstrate the promise of CAC in improving AMR, ADR, PDR across a spectrum of size and morphological lesion characteristics.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jgh.16059

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • CADe systems reduced the adenoma miss rate by 65% in colonoscopies.

    “Notably, a recent review revealed that CADe systems reduced the adenoma miss rate by an impressive 65% in colonoscopies [76] .”

    From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [76]

  • Larger (>10 mm) or polypoid adenomas also benefit from CADe assistance, albeit possibly to a lesser extent.

    “Nevertheless, larger ( > 10 mm) or polypoid adenomas, which are more apparent, also benefit from CADe assistance, albeit possibly to a lesser extent [76 , 84] .”

    From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [76]

  • CADe systems prove particularly beneficial in aiding the detection of small and flat lesions.

    “CADe systems prove particularly beneficial in aiding the detection of these challenging lesions [76 , 82 , 83] .”

    From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [76]

  • Overall, evidence strongly supports adoption of AI for improving lesion detection during colonoscopy.

    “Overall, the evidence strongly supports the adoption of AI for improving lesion detection during colonoscopy ( Tables 3 and 4 ) [76 , 78-81] .”

    From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [76]

  • Available AI devices exhibit very high sensitivity and overall performance on par with or better than top human experts.

    “Available AI devices exhibit very high sensitivity and overall performance on par with or better than top human experts [42 , 76] .”

    From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [76]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shah, S., Park, N., Chehade, N. E. H., Chahine, A., Monachese, M., Tiritilli, A., Moosvi, Z., Ortizo, R., & Samarasena, J.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of California, Irvine Medical Center (US)
  • MetroHealth (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Venue
Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-12-11
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
162-176
ISSN
  • 0815-9319 (ISSN-L)
  • 1440-1746
OpenAlex
W4308639372
Cited by
52
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 17
FWCI
1.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (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
adenoma miss rate, adenoma detection rate, polyp detection rate, colorectal cancer screening, artificial intelligence, sessile serrated lesions, interval colorectal cancer, colonoscopy quality indicators
MeSH terms
Adenoma, Artificial Intelligence, Colonic Polyps, Colonoscopy, Computers, Humans, Colorectal Neoplasms

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