Cited by 189Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionAI in cancer detectionArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

New artificial intelligence system: first validation study versus experienced endoscopists for colorectal polyp detection

Hassan, Cesare, Wallace, Michael B, Sharma, Prateek, Maselli, Roberta, Craviotto, Vincenzo, Spadaccini, Marco, Repici, Alessandro·2020·Gut

Abstract

To improve colorectal polyp detection, a new artificial intelligence (AI) system (GI-Genius, Medtronic) was trained and validated on a dataset of white-light endoscopy videos from a high-quality randomised controlled trial in comparison to the detection rate and the reaction time (RT) on a lesion basis (n=337/338, sensitivity: 99.7%); false-positive frames were seen in less than 1% of frames from the whole colonoscopy. The RT was faster by AI system as compared with endoscopists in 82% of cases (n=277/337; difference 1.27+3.81 s). This promising system will be tested in clinical studies. Despite its efficacy in colorectal cancer prevention, colonoscopy is affected by a high miss rate of neoplastic lesions and unacceptable variability in adenoma detection rate among individual endoscopists.1 2 By aiding polyp detection on colonoscopy images (figure 1), artificial intelligence (AI) can reduce performance variability. AI algorithms for object detection usually comprise a convolutional neural network trained using as ground truth images annotated by experts. Once trained, these AI systems are able to detect and pinpoint objects in real time, such as colorectal polyps. A new AI system (GI-Genius, Medtronic) was trained and validated using a series of videos of 2684 histologically confirmed polyps from 840 patients who underwent high-definition white-light colonoscopy as part of a previous randomised controlled study with centralised pathology.3 A total of 1.5 million images showin…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319914

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • AI performance in lesion detection has been reported as similar to the best human experts.

    “Overall, AI performance in lesion detection has been reported as similar to the best human experts [41 , 42] .”

    From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [41]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hassan, C., Wallace, M. B., Sharma, P., Maselli, R., Craviotto, V., Spadaccini, M., & Repici, A.
Affiliations
  • Endoscopy Unit, Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Rome, Italy
  • Mayo Clinic in Florida (US)
  • University of Kansas (US)
  • IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital (IT)
  • Humanitas University (IT)
Corresponding author
Spadaccini, Marco
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2019-10-15
Volume
69
Issue
5
Pages
799-800
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W2981035911
Cited by
189
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 27
FWCI
9.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Gut (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
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
artificial intelligence, colorectal polyp detection, colonoscopy, GI Genius, white light endoscopy, convolutional neural networks, object detection, adenoma detection rate, endoscopist variability, colorectal cancer prevention, sessile serrated adenoma
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Clinical Competence, Colonic Polyps, Colonoscopy, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged

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