Clinical evaluation of computer-aided colorectal neoplasia detection using a novel endoscopic artificial intelligence: a single-center randomized controlled trial
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
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?
In Nakashima et al. 2023, the CADe group had a higher ADR (39.9%) than the control group (32.4%) (p<0.001).
“The colonoscopies performed with CADe had a higher ADR (39.9%) compared to the control group (32.4%) (p<0.001).”
From Advancing Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Comprehensive Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Versus Routine Colonoscopy (2023) · cites this paper as [24]
In Nakashima et al. 2023, the AMR was 11.9% in the CADe group and 26.0% in the control group (p=0.037).
“The AMRs were 11.9% in the CADe group and 26.0% in the control group (p=0.037).”
From Advancing Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Comprehensive Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Versus Routine Colonoscopy (2023) · cites this paper as [24]
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
Hassan, C., Spadaccini, M., Mori, Y., Foroutan, F., Facciorusso, A., Gkolfakis, P., Tziatzios, G., Triantafyllou, K., Antonelli, G., Khalaf, K., et al. (2023) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m22-3678 · Cited by 216 · 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
Thomas, J., Ravichandran, R., Nag, A., Gupta, L., Singh, M., & Panjiyar, B. K. (2023) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.45278 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
“Only two studies [18,21] were designed as double-blinded RCTs, and only one of them was a truly double-blinded RCT. Wang et al. used a sham system to keep both the patients and the endoscopist unaware of the random assignment, and in the other study [21], while the endoscopy operators were informed about the allocatio…”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
- 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