Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38695105›Full record

ReviewThe Korean journal of internal medicine2024

Artificial intelligence in colonoscopy: from detection to diagnosis.

Eun Sun Kim, Kwang-Sig Lee

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Korean journal of internal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

2 authors.

Eun Sun KimDepartment of Gastroenterology, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Kwang-Sig LeeAI Center, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

Ministry of Health and Welfare HI22C1302Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy 20001533
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study reviews the recent progress of artificial intelligence for colonoscopy from detection to diagnosis. The source of data was 27 original studies in PubMed. The search terms were "colonoscopy" (title) and "deep learning" (abstract). The eligibility criteria were: (1) the dependent variable of gastrointestinal disease; (2) the interventions of deep learning for classification, detection and/or segmentation for colonoscopy; (3) the outcomes of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), precision, F1, intersection of union (IOU), Dice and/or inference frames per second (FPS); (3) the publication year of 2021 or later; (4) the publication language of English. Based on the results of this study, different deep learning methods would be appropriate for different tasks for colonoscopy, e.g., Efficientnet with neural architecture search (AUC 99.8%) in the case of classification, You Only Look Once with the instance tracking head (F1 96.3%) in the case of detection, and Unet with dense-dilation-residual blocks (Dice 97.3%) in the case of segmentation. Their performance measures reported varied within 74.0-95.0% for accuracy, 60.0-93.0% for sensitivity, 60.0-100.0% for specificity, 71.0-99.8% for the AUC, 70.1-93.3% for precision, 81.0-96.3% for F1, 57.2-89.5% for the IOU, 75.1-97.3% for Dice and 66-182 for FPS. In conclusion, artificial intelligence provides an effective, non-invasive decision support system for colonoscopy from detection to diagnosis.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyDeep LearningArtificial IntelligenceHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsArtificial intelligenceColonoscopyDetectionDiagnosisSegmentation

Identifiers

PMID38695105
PMCPMC11236815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.