Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40166696›Full record

ArticleBMJ medicine2025

Benefits, burden, and harms of computer aided polyp detection with artificial intelligence in colorectal cancer screening: microsimulation modelling study.

Natalie Halvorsen, Cesare Hassan, Loredana Correale, Nastazja Pilonis, Lise M Helsingen, Marco Spadaccini, Alessandro Repici, Farid Foroutan, Per Olav Vandvik, Shanaz Sultan and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Ethical and Legal Implications of Implementing AI in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. 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

14 authors.

Natalie HalvorsenClinical Effectiveness Research Group, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0009-0009-3062-036X
Cesare HassanHumanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS Foundation Maggiore Policlinico Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Loredana CorrealeHumanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS Foundation Maggiore Policlinico Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Nastazja PilonisClinical Effectiveness Research Group, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Lise M HelsingenClinical Effectiveness Research Group, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Marco SpadacciniHumanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS Foundation Maggiore Policlinico Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Alessandro RepiciHumanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS Foundation Maggiore Policlinico Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Farid ForoutanTed Rogers Centre for Heart Research, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Per Olav VandvikDepartment of Medicine, Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Shanaz SultanMinneapolis VA Healthcare System, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Magnus LøbergClinical Effectiveness Research Group, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Mette KalagerClinical Effectiveness Research Group, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Yuichi MoriClinical Effectiveness Research Group, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Michael BretthauerClinical Effectiveness Research Group, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

abstractObjective: To estimate the benefits, burden, and harms of implementing computer aided detection (CADe) of polyps in colonoscopy of population based screening programmes for colorectal cancer. Design: Microsimulation modelling study. Setting: Cost effectiveness working package in the OperA (optimising colorectal cancer prevention through personalised treatment with artificial intelligence) project. A parallel guideline committee panel (BMJ Rapid recommendation) was consulted in defining the screening interventions and selection of outcome measures. Population: Four cohorts of 100 000 European individuals aged 60-69 years. Intervention: The intervention was one screening of colonoscopy and a screening of colonoscopy after faecal immunochemical test every other year with CADe. The comparison group had the same screening every other year without CADe. Main outcome measures: Benefits (colorectal cancer incidence and death), burden (surveillance colonoscopies), and harms (colonoscopy related adverse events) over 10 years were measured. The certainty in each outcome was assessed by use of the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Results: For 100 000 individuals participating in colonoscopy screening, 824 (0.82%) were diagnosed with colorectal cancer within 10 years without CADe versus 713 (0.71%) with CADe (risk difference -0.11% (95% CI -0.43% to 0.21%)). For faecal immunochemical test screening colonoscopy, the risk was 5.82% (n=5820) without CADe versus 5.77% (n=5770) with CADe (difference -0.05% (-0.33% to 0.15%)). The risk of surveillance colonoscopy increased from 26.45% (n=26 453) to 32.82% (n=32 819) (difference 6.37% (5.8% to 6.9%)) for colonoscopy screening and from 52.26% (n=52 263) to 53.08% (n=53 082) (difference 0.82% (0.38% to 1.26%)) for faecal immunochemical test screening colonoscopy. No significant differences were noted in adverse events related to the colonoscopy between CADe and no CADe. The model estimates were sensitive to the assumed effects of screening on colorectal cancer risk and of CADe on adenoma detection rates. All outcomes were graded as low certainty. Conclusion: With low certainty of evidence, adoption of CADe in population based screening provides small and uncertain clinical meaningful benefit, no incremental harms, and increased surveillance burden after screening.

Indexed as

Diagnostic imagingDigestive system diseasesEndoscopyEndoscopy, digestive systemGastroenterology

Identifiers

PMID40166696
PMCPMC11955961

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.