Structured Integration of an Artificial Intelligence-Based System for the Optical Diagnosis of Colorectal Polyps

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background/Aims: Recent advances in computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) systems have demonstrated expert-level accuracy in the optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps. High-confidence (HC) diagnoses have been defined as those made within 3 seconds without hesitation, and these systems have been shown to improve diagnostic accuracy. We aimed to evaluate the performance of endoscopists with varying levels of experience in diagnosing colorectal polyps with the assistance of a new CADx system applying the 3-second rule and without artificial intelligence assistance. Methods: study, 35 endoscopists assessed 100 polyps (51 adenomas, 39 hyperplastic polyps, 10 sessile serrated lesions) using narrow-band imaging video clips on an online platform. Assessments consisted of individual endoscopist diagnosis and CADx-assisted diagnosis. HC assignments followed the 3-second rule in both phases. Performance metrics included HC accuracy, HC rate, and adherence to the Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations (PIVI) and Simple Optical Diagnosis Accuracy (SODA) thresholds. Results: HC diagnostic accuracy improved from 78.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76.6% to 80.0%) to 89.8% (95% CI, 88.6% to 90.9%) with CADx assistance (p<0.001). The proportion of HC predictions increased from 64.2% to 75.4% (p<0.001). Novice endoscopists showed marked improvement with CADx (74.1% vs 88.8%; p<0.001). CADx-assisted diagnoses nearly met SODA and PIVI thresholds under the 3-second rule. Additional analysis demonstrated that CADx assistance significantly improved interobserver agreement and ground truth, particularly for novices (κ=0.37 to κ=0.65; p<0.001). Conclusions: Integrating CADx with the 3-second rule significantly enhances the performance of endoscopists in the optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps, with the greatest benefit observed among novice endoscopists.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.