SynthesisDigestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society2025
Computer-aided diagnosis for colorectal polyp in comparison with endoscopists: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of ChatGPT Model 5.1 in the Optical Characterization of Colorectal Lesions.Cureus · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence and digital transformation of gastroenterology and hepatology: A critical review of clinical applications and future challenges.World journal of hepatology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesComputer-aided diagnosis (CADx) is anticipated to enhance the prediction of colorectal polyp histology. This study aims to compare the diagnostic accuracy of CADx in the optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps, evaluating its performance against that of both experienced and inexperienced endoscopists.
methodsThe protocol of this study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (ID: CRD42024585097). Three electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched in September 2024. A bivariate random effects model was employed. The primary outcome was the comparison of sensitivity and specificity between CADx and experienced endoscopists; the secondary outcome was the comparison between CADx and inexperienced endoscopists.
resultsTwenty-one studies involving 5477 polyps were included. The pooled sensitivities of CADx and experienced endoscopists were 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-0.91) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.83-0.91), respectively (P = 0.93). The pooled specificities of CADx and experienced endoscopists were 0.85 (95% CI 0.78-0.90) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.82-0.92), respectively (P = 0.53). In nine studies comparing CADx with inexperienced endoscopists, the pooled sensitivities were 0.88 (95% CI 0.82-0.92) for CADx and 0.85 (95% CI 0.78-0.90) for inexperienced endoscopists (P = 0.46). The pooled specificities were 0.84 (95% CI 0.78-0.88) for CADx and 0.77 (95% CI 0.70-0.83) for inexperienced endoscopists (P = 0.16).
conclusionComputer-aided diagnosis does not demonstrate superior diagnostic accuracy in optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps compared to endoscopists, regardless of their experience level.
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.