Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39054913›Full record

ArticleGut and liver2024

Impact of User's Background Knowledge and Polyp Characteristics in Colonoscopy with Computer-Aided Detection.

Jooyoung Lee, Woo Sang Cho, Byeong Soo Kim, Dan Yoon, Jung Kim, Ji Hyun Song, Sun Young Yang, Seon Hee Lim, Goh Eun Chung, Ji Min Choi and 5 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

15 authors.

Jooyoung LeeDepartment of Internal Medicine and Healthcare Research Institute, Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-1652-088X
Woo Sang ChoInterdisciplinary Program in Bioengineering, Graduate School, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-0032-5836
Byeong Soo KimInterdisciplinary Program in Bioengineering, Graduate School, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-8767-9842
Dan YoonInterdisciplinary Program in Bioengineering, Graduate School, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-5657-5984
Jung KimDepartment of Internal Medicine and Healthcare Research Institute, Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-9509-0851
Ji Hyun SongDepartment of Internal Medicine and Healthcare Research Institute, Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-9459-9250
Sun Young YangDepartment of Internal Medicine and Healthcare Research Institute, Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-4766-3752
Seon Hee LimDepartment of Internal Medicine and Healthcare Research Institute, Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-6174-7165
Goh Eun ChungDepartment of Internal Medicine and Healthcare Research Institute, Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-8344-7737
Ji Min ChoiDepartment of Internal Medicine and Healthcare Research Institute, Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-8611-4647
Yoo Min HanDepartment of Internal Medicine and Healthcare Research Institute, Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-5580-8427
Hyoun-Joong KongDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-5456-4862
Jung Chan LeeDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-4546-0962
Sungwan KimDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-9318-849X
Jung Ho BaeDepartment of Internal Medicine and Healthcare Research Institute, Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-7669-1213

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical CompetenceColonic PolypsColonoscopyDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedArtificial intelligenceColonoscopyPolyps

Identifiers

PMID39054913
PMCPMC11391145

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.