BACKGROUND:  Use of artificial intelligence may increase detection of colorectal neoplasia at colonoscopy by improving lesion recognition (CADe) and reduce pathology costs by improving optical diagnosis (CADx). METHODS:  A multicenter library of ≥ 200 000 images from 1572 polyps was used to train a combined CADe/CADx system. System testing was performed on two independent image sets (CADe: 446 with polyps, 234 without; CADx: 267) from 234 polyps, which were also evaluated by six endoscopists (three experts, three non-experts). RESULTS:  CADe showed sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 92.9 %, 90.6 %, and 91.7 %, respectively. Experts showed significantly higher accuracy and specificity, and similar sensitivity, while non-experts + CADe showed comparable sensitivity but lower specificity and accuracy than CADe and experts. CADx showed sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 85.0 %, 79.4 %, and 83.6 %, respectively. Experts showed comparable performance, whereas non-experts + CADx showed comparable accuracy but lower specificity than CADx and experts. CONCLUSIONS:  The high accuracy shown by CADe and CADx was similar to that of experts, supporting further evaluation in a clinical setting. When using CAD, non-experts achieved a similar performance to experts, with suboptimal specificity.

Performance of a new integrated computer-assisted system (CADe/CADx) for detection and characterization of colorectal neoplasia

Hassan C;
2021-01-01

Abstract

BACKGROUND:  Use of artificial intelligence may increase detection of colorectal neoplasia at colonoscopy by improving lesion recognition (CADe) and reduce pathology costs by improving optical diagnosis (CADx). METHODS:  A multicenter library of ≥ 200 000 images from 1572 polyps was used to train a combined CADe/CADx system. System testing was performed on two independent image sets (CADe: 446 with polyps, 234 without; CADx: 267) from 234 polyps, which were also evaluated by six endoscopists (three experts, three non-experts). RESULTS:  CADe showed sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 92.9 %, 90.6 %, and 91.7 %, respectively. Experts showed significantly higher accuracy and specificity, and similar sensitivity, while non-experts + CADe showed comparable sensitivity but lower specificity and accuracy than CADe and experts. CADx showed sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 85.0 %, 79.4 %, and 83.6 %, respectively. Experts showed comparable performance, whereas non-experts + CADx showed comparable accuracy but lower specificity than CADx and experts. CONCLUSIONS:  The high accuracy shown by CADe and CADx was similar to that of experts, supporting further evaluation in a clinical setting. When using CAD, non-experts achieved a similar performance to experts, with suboptimal specificity.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11699/75728
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 48
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 47
social impact