Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34792588›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence-Augmented Digital System for Histologic Classification of Colorectal Polyps.

Mustafa Nasir-Moin, Arief A Suriawinata, Bing Ren, Xiaoying Liu, Douglas J Robertson, Srishti Bagchi, Naofumi Tomita, Jason W Wei, Todd A MacKenzie, Judy R Rees and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mustafa Nasir-MoinDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Arief A SuriawinataDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Bing RenDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Xiaoying LiuDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Douglas J RobertsonThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Srishti BagchiDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Naofumi TomitaDepartment of Computer Science, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Jason W WeiDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Todd A MacKenzieDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Judy R ReesDepartment of Community and Family Medicine, Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Saeed HassanpourDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Dartmouth College · USDartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center · USWhite River Junction VA Medical Center · US

Funding

Translational Engineering in Cancer (TEC)P30CA023108 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI Steven D Leach · 1985 to 2026
$91.3M
Clinicopathologic and Genetic Profiling through Machine Learning and Natural Language Processing for Precision Lung Cancer ManagementR01CA249758 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI HASSANPOUR, SAEED · 2019 to 2022
$1.5M
Improving Colorectal Cancer Screening and Risk Assessment through Deep Learning on Medical Images and RecordsR01LM012837 · NLM · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI HASSANPOUR, SAEED · 2019 to 2022
$1.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023108NCI NIH HHS R01 CA249758NLM NIH HHS R01 LM012837
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Colorectal polyps are common, and their histopathologic classification is used in the planning of follow-up surveillance. Substantial variation has been observed in pathologists' classification of colorectal polyps, and improved assessment by pathologists may be associated with reduced subsequent underuse and overuse of colonoscopy. Objective: To compare standard microscopic assessment with an artificial intelligence (AI)-augmented digital system that annotates regions of interest within digitized polyp tissue and predicts polyp type using a deep learning model to assist pathologists in colorectal polyp classification. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this diagnostic study conducted at a tertiary academic medical center and a community hospital in New Hampshire, 100 slides with colorectal polyp samples were read by 15 pathologists using a microscope and an AI-augmented digital system, with a washout period of at least 12 weeks between use of each modality. The study was conducted from February 10 to July 10, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Accuracy and time of evaluation were used to compare pathologists' performance when a microscope was used with their performance when the AI-augmented digital system was used. Outcomes were compared using paired t tests and mixed-effects models. Results: In assessments of 100 slides with colorectal polyp specimens, use of the AI-augmented digital system significantly improved pathologists' classification accuracy compared with microscopic assessment from 73.9% (95% CI, 71.7%-76.2%) to 80.8% (95% CI, 78.8%-82.8%) (P < .001). The overall difference in the evaluation time per slide between the digital system (mean, 21.7 seconds; 95% CI, 20.8-22.7 seconds) and microscopic examination (mean, 13.0 seconds; 95% CI, 12.4-13.5 seconds) was -8.8 seconds (95% CI, -9.8 to -7.7 seconds), but this difference decreased as pathologists became more familiar and experienced with the digital system; the difference between the time of evaluation on the last set of 20 slides for all pathologists when using the microscope and the digital system was 4.8 seconds (95% CI, 3.0-6.5 seconds). Conclusions and Relevance: In this diagnostic study, an AI-augmented digital system significantly improved the accuracy of pathologic interpretation of colorectal polyps compared with microscopic assessment. If applied broadly to clinical practice, this tool may be associated with decreases in subsequent overuse and underuse of colonoscopy and thus with improved patient outcomes and reduced health care costs.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMicroscopyColonic PolypsColorectal NeoplasmsData AccuracyDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedNew Hampshire

Identifiers

PMID34792588
PMCPMC8603082
OpenAlexW3211756810

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.