Endoscopy international open · 2026
Performance of an artificial intelligence system versus endoscopists for interrogation of scars after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ortiz Oswaldo, Prat Ricard, Soy Guillem, Bofill Alex, Llach Joan, Daca-Alvarez Maria, Balaguer Francesc, Brunori Angelo, Kumari Hardeep, Vergara Romina, Rivero-Sánchez Liseth, Pellisé Maria
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Detection and management of recurrence after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (p-EMR) of large colorectal polyps is crucial for preventing post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Colonoscopy assisted with artificial intelligence systems for lesion detection (CADe) has shown efficacy in identifying polyps, particularly small lesions (< 10 mm). Our aim was to evaluate sensitivity and negative predictive value of CADe compared with endoscopists in detecting recurrence after p-EMR.
METHODS: Sixty-six pseudo anonymized high-quality videos (25 with recurrence and 15 with previously clipped defects) of > 15 mm polyps post-EMR scars were assessed. Recurrence size was < 10 mm in 19 of 25 cases (76.0%). Six endoscopists-three experts and three non-experts-predicted recurrence (yes/no) with confidence level (high/low). The same videos were analyzed with CAD-e detection mode superimposed. The gold standard was histopathology.
RESULTS: Endoscopists had higher sensitivity than CADe (96.0% vs 72.0%; P = 0.03). Experts performed better than non-experts in ruling out recurrence (specificity: 92.7% vs 58.5%; P = 0.001) and accuracy (92.4% vs 72.7%; P < 0.001). In non-clipped defects, endoscopists maintained higher sensitivity than CADe (95.0% vs 65.0%; P = 0.03). Concordance was moderate overall (Kappa 0.57) but substantial among experts (0.70) and when excluding clipped defects (0.61).
CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopists outperformed CADe in interrogating post-EMR scars. Training CADe with images of post-polypectomy scars may further improve its performance.
METHODS: Sixty-six pseudo anonymized high-quality videos (25 with recurrence and 15 with previously clipped defects) of > 15 mm polyps post-EMR scars were assessed. Recurrence size was < 10 mm in 19 of 25 cases (76.0%). Six endoscopists-three experts and three non-experts-predicted recurrence (yes/no) with confidence level (high/low). The same videos were analyzed with CAD-e detection mode superimposed. The gold standard was histopathology.
RESULTS: Endoscopists had higher sensitivity than CADe (96.0% vs 72.0%; P = 0.03). Experts performed better than non-experts in ruling out recurrence (specificity: 92.7% vs 58.5%; P = 0.001) and accuracy (92.4% vs 72.7%; P < 0.001). In non-clipped defects, endoscopists maintained higher sensitivity than CADe (95.0% vs 65.0%; P = 0.03). Concordance was moderate overall (Kappa 0.57) but substantial among experts (0.70) and when excluding clipped defects (0.61).
CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopists outperformed CADe in interrogating post-EMR scars. Training CADe with images of post-polypectomy scars may further improve its performance.