Multicentre study to assess the performance of an artificial intelligence instrument to support qualitative diagnosis of colorectal polyps

• Published in: BMJ open gastroenterology Vol. 11; no. 1; p. e001553
• Main Authors: Sato, Keigo, Kuramochi, Mizuki, Tsuchiya, Akihiko, Yamaguchi, Akihiro, Hosoda, Yasuo, Yamaguchi, Norio, Nakamura, Naohiro, Itoi, Yuki, Hashimoto, Yu, Kasuga, Kengo, Tanaka, Hirohito, Kuribayashi, Shiko, Takeuchi, Yoji, Uraoka, Toshio
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BMJ Publishing Group 22.10.2024
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Artificial Intelligence; Colonic Polyps - diagnosis; Colonic Polyps - pathology; Colonoscopy - methods; Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnosis; Colorectal Neoplasms - pathology; Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted - methods; Endoscopy; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Original Research; Prospective Studies; Sensitivity and Specificity; COLONIC POLYPS; COLONOSCOPY; COLONIC ADENOMAS
• ISSN: 2054-4774; 2054-4774
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2024-001553

Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) using artificial intelligence (AI) is expected to support the characterisation of colorectal lesions, which is clinically relevant for efficient colorectal cancer prevention. We conducted this study to assess the diagnostic performance of commercially available CAD systems. This was a multicentre, prospective performance evaluation study. The endoscopist diagnosed polyps using white light imaging, followed by non-magnified blue light imaging (non-mBLI) and mBLI. AI subsequently assessed the lesions using non-mBLI (non-mAI), followed by mBLI (mAI). Eventually, endoscopists made the final diagnosis by integrating the AI diagnosis (AI+endoscopist). The primary endpoint was the accuracy of the AI diagnosis of neoplastic lesions. The diagnostic performance of each modality (sensitivity, specificity and accuracy) and confidence levels were also assessed. Overall, 380 lesions from 139 patients were included in the analysis. The accuracy of non-mAI was 83%, 95% CI (79% to 87%), which was inferior to that of mBLI (89%, 95% CI (85% to 92%)) and mAI (89%, 95% CI (85% to 92%)). The accuracy (95% CI) of diagnosis by expert endoscopists using mAI (91%, 95% CI (87% to 94%)) was comparable to that of expert endoscopists using mBLI (91%, 95% CI (87% to 94%)) but better than that of non-expert endoscopists using mAI (83%, 95% CI (75% to 90%)). The level of confidence in making a correct diagnosis was increased when using magnification and AI. The diagnostic performance of mAI for differentiating colonic lesions is comparable to that of endoscopists, regardless of their experience. However, it can be affected by the use of magnification as well as the endoscopists' level of experience.