ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2025
Prospective Comparison of Pathology and Computer-Aided Optical Diagnosis for Polyp Characterization Using Expert Consensus.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHistopathology is the accepted gold standard for classifying colorectal polyps. However, the complex pathway from initial polyp detection and resection to final histological diagnosis involves multiple steps (retrieval, embedding, sectioning, interpretation), each potentially introducing diagnostic errors. We aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of autonomous computer-aided optical polyp diagnosis (CADx) versus histopathology, using expert consensus as the reference standard.
methodsIn this prospective study, three internationally recognized expert endoscopists independently reviewed colonoscopy images and videos of diminutive (≤ 5 mm) polyps assessed by autonomous CADx. Unanimous, high-confidence expert agreement was defined as the reference standard ('ground truth'), assumed superior due to absence of resection or specimen-management related artifacts. The primary outcome was the proportion of specimens with potential incorrect histopathology diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included comparative accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of autonomous CADx and histopathology against the expert-defined reference standard.
resultsAmong 510 patients, experts provided unanimous, high-confidence diagnoses for 226 diminutive (≤ 5 mm) colorectal polyps, serving as the reference standard. The proportion of potentially incorrect pathology diagnoses was 23% (95% CI: (17.8,29.2)). Autonomous CADx achieved a higher accuracy of 91.2% (95% CI: 86.5-94.4%), compared with pathology at 77.0% (95% CI: 70.8-82.2%; p < 0.001).
conclusionThese findings highlight that histopathological diagnosis after polyp resection is not infallible and can introduce diagnostic errors in a relevant proportion of cases. CADx diagnosis, obtained during the procedure and unaffected by specimen handling artifacts, may prevent some of these errors, suggesting it could offer superior accuracy for polyp characterization in certain cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40707751What 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.