Cited by 49Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionAI in cancer detectionColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments

Clinical evaluation of computer-aided colorectal neoplasia detection using a novel endoscopic artificial intelligence: a single-center randomized controlled trial

Nakashima, Hirotaka, Kitazawa, Naoko, Fukuyama, Chika, Kawachi, Hiroshi, Kawahira, Hiroshi, Momma, Kumiko, Sakaki, Nobuhiro·2023·Digestion

Abstract

Introduction Computer-aided diagnostic systems are emerging in the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy. In this study, we assessed the clinical performance of the computer-aided detection (CADe) of colonic adenomas using a new endoscopic artificial intelligence system. Methods This was a single-center prospective randomized study including 415 participants allocated into the CADe group (n = 207) and control group (n = 208). All endoscopic examinations were performed by experienced endoscopists. The performance of the CADe was assessed based on the adenoma detection rate (ADR). Additionally, we compared the adenoma miss rate for the rectosigmoid colon (AMRrs) between the groups. Results The basic demographic and procedural characteristics of the CADe and control groups were as follows: mean age, 54.9 and 55.9 years; male sex, 73.9% and 69.7% of participants; and mean withdrawal time, 411.8 and 399.0 s, respectively. The ADR was 59.4% in the CADe group and 47.6% in the control group (p = 0.018). The AMRrs was 11.9% in the CADe group and 26.0% in the control group (p = 0.037). Conclusion The colonoscopy with the CADe system yielded an 11.8% higher ADR than that performed by experienced endoscopists alone. Moreover, there was no need to extend the examination time or request the assistance of additional medical staff to achieve this improved effectiveness. We believe that the novel CADe system can lead to considerable advances in colorectal cancer diagnosis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000528085

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nakashima, H., Kitazawa, N., Fukuyama, C., Kawachi, H., Kawahira, H., Momma, K., & Sakaki, N.
Affiliations
  • Foundation for Detection of Early Gastric Carcinoma (JP)
  • Japanese Foundation For Cancer Research (JP)
  • The Cancer Institute Hospital (JP)
  • Jichi Medical University (JP)
Venue
Digestion
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2023
Volume
104
Issue
3
Pages
193-201
ISSN
  • 0012-2823 (ISSN-L)
  • 1421-9867
OpenAlex
W4313546438
Cited by
49
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 7
FWCI
5.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Digestion (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
computer-aided detection, colorectal neoplasia, colonic adenoma, adenoma detection rate, adenoma miss rate, rectosigmoid colon, colonoscopy, colorectal cancer diagnosis, polyp detection
MeSH terms
Adenoma, Artificial Intelligence, Colonic Neoplasms, Colonic Polyps, Colonoscopy, Computers, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, 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