Artificial intelligence empowers the second-observer strategy for colonoscopy: a randomized clinical trial

Author:

Wang Pu1ORCID,Liu Xiao-Gang1,Kang Min2,Peng Xue3,Shu Mei-Ling4,Zhou Guan-Yu1,Liu Pei-Xi1,Xiong Fei1,Deng Ming-Ming2,Xia Hong-Fen2,Li Jian-Jun3,Long Xiao-Qi4,Song Yan1,Li Liang-Ping1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Gastroenterology, Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China , Chengdu, Sichuan, P. R. China

2. Department of Gastroenterology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University , Luzhou, Sichuan, P. R. China

3. Department of Gastroenterology, Xinqiao Hospital, Third Military Medical University , Chongqing, P. R. China

4. Department of Gastroenterology, Suining Central Hospital , Suining, Sichuan, P. R. China

Abstract

Abstract Background In colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer, human vision limitations may lead to higher miss rate of lesions; artificial intelligence (AI) assistance has been demonstrated to improve polyp detection. However, there still lacks direct evidence to demonstrate whether AI is superior to trainees or experienced nurses as a second observer to increase adenoma detection during colonoscopy. In this study, we aimed to compare the effectiveness of assistance from AI and human observer during colonoscopy. Methods A prospective multicenter randomized study was conducted from 2 September 2019 to 29 May 2020 at four endoscopy centers in China. Eligible patients were randomized to either computer-aided detection (CADe)-assisted group or observer-assisted group. The primary outcome was adenoma per colonoscopy (APC). Secondary outcomes included polyp per colonoscopy (PPC), adenoma detection rate (ADR), and polyp detection rate (PDR). We compared continuous variables and categorical variables by using R studio (version 3.4.4). Results A total of 1,261 (636 in the CADe-assisted group and 625 in the observer-assisted group) eligible patients were analysed. APC (0.42 vs 0.35, P = 0.034), PPC (1.13 vs 0.81, P < 0.001), PDR (47.5% vs 37.4%, P < 0.001), ADR (25.8% vs 24.0%, P = 0.464), the number of detected sessile polyps (683 vs 464, P < 0.001), and sessile adenomas (244 vs 182, P = 0.005) were significantly higher in the CADe-assisted group than in the observer-assisted group. False detections of the CADe system were lower than those of the human observer (122 vs 191, P < 0.001). Conclusions Compared with the human observer, the CADe system may improve the clinical outcome of colonoscopy and reduce disturbance to routine practice (Chictr.org.cn No.: ChiCTR1900025235).

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Gastroenterology

Cited by 11 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3