ArticleEndoscopy international open2025
Diagnostic performance and agreement of auditors for evaluation of computer-aided optical polyp diagnosis: Prospective study.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prospective Comparison of Pathology and Computer-Aided Optical Diagnosis for Polyp Characterization Using Expert Consensus.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: Guidelines recommend independent auditing of diagnostic performance for clinical implementation of computer-aided optical polyp diagnosis (CADx). This study evaluated diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement of auditors and offered guidance on conducting CADx audits. Methods: Images and videos of all ≤ 5-mm polyps from a large, prospective study with systematic activation of CADx were audited by three expert endoscopists. Experts performed independent, blinded diagnostic review including documentation of confidence level. The primary outcome was sensitivity of audit by three experts for high-confidence adenomas compared with pathology. Secondary outcomes included number of reviewers for optimal CADx auditing and interobserver agreement. Results: Four hundred eighty-seven diminutive polyps were audited (510 patients). Sensitivity was 99.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 96.0-100) using three experts (Strategy A); 88.7% (95% CI 84.1-92.1) using two experts and one referee (Strategy B); 99% (95% CI 96-99.8), 98.8% (95% CI 95.4-99.8), and 99.4% (95% CI 96.3-100) using two-expert combinations (Strategy C); and 98.2% (95% CI 95.1-99.4), 97.3% (95% CI 94.0-98.9), and 88.9% (95% CI 83.6-92.7) for each expert individually (Strategy D). Among 266 pathology-based adenomas, Strategy A evaluated 160 polyps versus 196, 172, and 170 in Strategy C; and 220, 223, and 207 in Strategy D. Strategy B evaluated all 266 adenomas. Overall interobserver agreement was moderate (kappa 0.52), but very high for high-confidence adenomas (kappa 0.89). Conclusions: Expert audit for evaluating CADx resulted in high sensitivity and interobserver agreement for high-confidence adenomas. Audit by two experts, with a third expert for arbitration, permitted audit of all polyps and effective assessment of CADx within clinical studies.
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.