ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2025
Eye Tracking Analysis to Determine the Endoscopist's Recognition Rate for Artificial Intelligence-Detected Sites in Colonoscopy.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
purposeComputer-aided detection systems (CADe) are used in screening colonoscopy; however, no study has quantitatively analyzed how endoscopists recognize candidate sites identified by CADe. The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which endoscopists could recognize CADe-detected sites.
methodsThis prospective study used a dedicated eye tracking technology-based system to record the endoscopist's eye position and CADe detection sites in a single video during colonoscope withdrawal. All videos were reviewed to calculate the endoscopist's recognition rate, which was defined as the percentage of sites identified by CADe at which the endoscopist stared for > 300 ms. A logistic regression model was used to determine the predictors for quicker lesion detection by endoscopists than by CADe.
resultsIn 55 colonoscopies, 447 sites (306 artifacts, 98 adenomas, 28 hyperplastic polyps, 12 sessile serrated lesions [SSLs], 3 intramucosal cancers) were detected by CADe. The overall endoscopist recognition rate was 82.1%; the rate was 95.9% for adenomas, 92.8% for hyperplastic polyps, 100% for SSLs, 100% for intramucosal cancers, and 75.8% for artifacts. However, tracking speed analysis showed that only 33.3% CADe-detected SSLs were tracked by endoscopists within 300 ms. Logistic regression analysis revealed SSLs as an independent predictor for faster detection by endoscopists than by CADe (odds ratio: 6.1, 95% confidence interval: 4.6-807.3, P = 0.002).
conclusionEndoscopists ignored a substantial proportion of artifacts and successfully recognized most lesions detected by CADe. These findings provide insights into the CADe-endoscopist interaction. Nevertheless, SSL detection should be conducted with caution, even with CADe support.
trial registrationUMIN-CTR (UMIN000052891).
Indexed as
Identifiers
40707744What 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.