ArticleGut and liver2024
Impact of User's Background Knowledge and Polyp Characteristics in Colonoscopy with Computer-Aided Detection.
Article in Gut and liver, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Efficacy of Real-Time Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Colonoscopy in Colorectal Polyp Detection: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.Gut and liver · 2026Trial
- Impact of expert-curated video training data on computer-aided detection of sessile serrated lesions: a retrospective study in Korea.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Integration of Endocuff-Assisted and Computer-Aided Colonoscopy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Review
- Structured Integration of an Artificial Intelligence-Based System for the Optical Diagnosis of Colorectal Polyps.Gut and liver · 2026Article
- Eye Tracking Analysis to Determine the Endoscopist's Recognition Rate for Artificial Intelligence-Detected Sites in Colonoscopy.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of a novel artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy system for adenoma detection: a prospective, propensity score-matched, non-randomized controlled study in Korea.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy for colorectal lesion detection: a case-control study on diagnostic accuracy and histopathological agreement.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2025Article
- A prospective comparison of two computer aided detection systems with different false positive rates in colonoscopy.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Understanding the discrepancy in the effectiveness of artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy: from randomized controlled trials to clinical reality.Clinical endoscopy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aims: We investigated how interactions between humans and computer-aided detection (CADe) systems are influenced by the user's experience and polyp characteristics. Methods: We developed a CADe system using YOLOv4, trained on 16,996 polyp images from 1,914 patients and 1,800 synthesized sessile serrated lesion (SSL) images. The performance of polyp detection with CADe assistance was evaluated using a computerized test module. Eighteen participants were grouped by colonoscopy experience (nurses, fellows, and experts). The value added by CADe based on the histopathology and detection difficulty of polyps were analyzed. Results: The area under the curve for CADe was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 0.91). CADe assistance increased overall polyp detection accuracy from 69.7% to 77.7% (odds ratio [OR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.69 to 2.09). However, accuracy decreased when CADe inaccurately detected a polyp (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.87). The impact of CADe assistance was most and least prominent in the nurses (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.71 to 2.27) and the experts (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.74), respectively. Participants demonstrated better sensitivity with CADe assistance, achieving 81.7% for adenomas and 92.4% for easy-to-detect polyps, surpassing the standalone CADe performance of 79.7% and 89.8%, respectively. For SSLs and difficult-to-detect polyps, participants' sensitivities with CADe assistance (66.5% and 71.5%, respectively) were below those of standalone CADe (81.1% and 74.4%). Compared to the other two groups (56.1% and 61.7%), the expert group showed sensitivity closest to that of standalone CADe in detecting SSLs (79.7% vs 81.1%, respectively). Conclusions: CADe assistance boosts polyp detection significantly, but its effectiveness depends on the user's experience, particularly for challenging lesions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.