ArticleBMJ medicine2025
Benefits, burden, and harms of computer aided polyp detection with artificial intelligence in colorectal cancer screening: microsimulation modelling study.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- AGA Living Clinical Practice Guideline on Computer-Aided Detection-Assisted Colonoscopy.Gastroenterology · 2025Guideline
- Ethical and Legal Implications of Implementing AI in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026Review
- Real-time AI-assisted quality control during nasopharyngolaryngoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence assisted colorectal lesion detection in private practices a randomized controlled study.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in FIT-Positive Colonoscopy: Balancing Detection Metrics and Clinical Impact.United European gastroenterology journal · 2026Article
- Computer-assisted detection of colorectal polyps: a narrative review of clinical utility, ongoing limitations, and opportunities for advancement.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Review
- [Risks and benefits of artificial intelligence in luminal endoscopy].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in colonoscopy: Enhancing quality indicators for optimal patient outcomes.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.