New artificial intelligence system: first validation study versus experienced endoscopists for colorectal polyp detection
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
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?
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
Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death
Corley, D. A., Jensen, C. D., Marks, A. R., Zhao, W. K., Lee, J. K., Doubeni, C. A., Zauber, A. G., de Boer, J., Fireman, B. H., Schottinger, J. E., et al. (2014) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1309086 · Cited by 2,270 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Efficacy of real-time computer-aided detection of colorectal neoplasia in a randomized trial
Repici, A., Badalamenti, M., Maselli, R., Correale, L., Radaelli, F., Rondonotti, E., Ferrara, E., Spadaccini, M., Alkandari, A., Fugazza, A., et al. (2020) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2020.04.062 · Cited by 646 · see citing works
Self-citationHassan, C., Spadaccini, M., Iannone, A., Maselli, R., Jovani, M., Chandrasekar, V. T., Antonelli, G., Yu, H., Areia, M., Dinis-Ribeiro, M., et al. (2021) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.059 · Cited by 529 · see citing works
Self-citationArtificial Intelligence Allows Leaving-In-Situ Colorectal Polyps
Hassan, C., Balsamo, G., Lorenzetti, R., Zullo, A., & Antonelli, G. (2022) · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2022.04.045 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Self-citationKarsenti, D., Tharsis, G., Perrot, B., Cattan, P., Percie du Sert, A., Venezia, F., Zrihen, E., Gillet, A., Lab, J.-P., Tordjman, G., et al. (2023) · The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1016/s2468-1253(23)00104-8 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Guerrero Vinsard, D., Fetzer, J. R., Agrawal, U., Singh, J., Damani, D. N., Sivasubramaniam, P., Poigai Arunachalam, S., Leggett, C. L., Raffals, L. E., & Coelho-Prabhu, N. (2023) · iGIE · doi:10.1016/j.igie.2023.03.004 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy
Introzzi, L., Zonca, J., Cabitza, F., Cherubini, P., & Reverberi, C. (2024) · Digestive and Liver Disease · doi:10.1016/j.dld.2023.10.018 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence-assisted colonoscopy and colorectal cancer screening: Where are we going?
Spadaccini, M., Troya, J., Khalaf, K., Facciorusso, A., Maselli, R., Hann, A., & Repici, A. (2024) · Digestive and Liver Disease · doi:10.1016/j.dld.2024.01.203 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Self-citation
- 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
- ORCID
- 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