Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34259645›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2021

Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence and Computer-Aided Diagnosis for the Detection and Characterization of Colorectal Polyps: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Scarlet Nazarian, Ben Glover, Hutan Ashrafian, Ara Darzi, Julian Teare

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Convolutional Neural Network in the Diagnosis of Colorectal Polyps and Cancer.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. [Role of Artificial Intelligence in Improving Quality of Colonoscopy].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2025
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Advances in endoscopic diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Scarlet Nazarian *Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1409-5253
Ben Glover *Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3043-0012
Hutan Ashrafian *Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1668-0672
Ara Darzi *Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7815-7989
Julian Teare *Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3551-9139
St Mary's Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColonoscopy reduces the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) by allowing detection and resection of neoplastic polyps. Evidence shows that many small polyps are missed on a single colonoscopy. There has been a successful adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to tackle the issues around missed polyps and as tools to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR).

objectiveThe aim of this review was to examine the diagnostic accuracy of AI-based technologies in assessing colorectal polyps.

methodsA comprehensive literature search was undertaken using the databases of Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Studies reporting the use of computer-aided diagnosis for polyp detection or characterization during colonoscopy were included. Independent proportions and their differences were calculated and pooled through DerSimonian and Laird random-effects modeling.

resultsA total of 48 studies were included. The meta-analysis showed a significant increase in pooled polyp detection rate in patients with the use of AI for polyp detection during colonoscopy compared with patients who had standard colonoscopy (odds ratio [OR] 1.75, 95% CI 1.56-1.96; P<.001). When comparing patients undergoing colonoscopy with the use of AI to those without, there was also a significant increase in ADR (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.32-1.77; P<.001).

conclusionsWith the aid of machine learning, there is potential to improve ADR and, consequently, reduce the incidence of CRC. The current generation of AI-based systems demonstrate impressive accuracy for the detection and characterization of colorectal polyps. However, this is an evolving field and before its adoption into a clinical setting, AI systems must prove worthy to patients and clinicians.

trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020169786; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020169786.

Indexed as

Colonic PolypsColorectal NeoplasmsArtificial IntelligenceColonoscopyComputersHumansartificial intelligencecolonoscopycomputer-aided diagnosismachine learningpolyp

Identifiers

PMID34259645
PMCPMC8319784
OpenAlexW3163655960

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.