SynthesisBMC gastroenterology2025
Effect of AI-assisted diagnosis on adenomas of different sizes: a meta-analysis with evidence from RCTs and trial sequential analysis.
Synthesis in BMC gastroenterology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe application of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-assisted techniques in adenoma detection during colonoscopy has increased. However, the effectiveness of AI in improving adenoma detection rates (ADR) and reducing adenoma miss rates (AMR) across varying adenoma sizes has yet to be thoroughly assessed.
methodsRelevant literature was systematically retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, VIP Information Database (VIP), Wanfang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the impact of AI-assisted techniques on ADR and AMR in colorectal adenomas of different sizes (≤ 5 mm, 6–9 mm, ≥ 10 mm). RevMan 5.4 and Stata 17.0 were utilized for statistical analysis. GRADE methodology was applied to rate the certainty of evidence, complemented by TSA to assess the reliability of the outcomes.
resultsA total of 19 RCTs comprising 15,462 participants were included in the analysis. In the detection of adenomas ≤ 5 mm, the AI-assisted group demonstrated superior performance with a significantly increased ADR (RR = 1.43, 95% CI (1.29, 1.59), P < 0.00001) and markedly reduced AMR (RR = 0.35, 95% CI (0.28, 0.44), P < 0.00001) compared to conventional methods. For 6–9 mm adenomas, AI assistance significantly increased the ADR (RR = 1.24, 95% CI (1.12, 1.36), P < 0.0001), though its effect on AMR was not statistically significant (RR = 0.59, 95% CI (0.24, 1.43), P = 0.24). For adenomas ≥ 10 mm, ADR was significantly higher in the AI-assisted group (RR = 1.21, 95% CI (1.07, 1.37), P = 0.003), but the difference in AMR was not statistically significant (RR = 0.24, 95% CI (0.05, 1.19), P = 0.08). Publication bias analysis suggested potential bias in ADR results for 6–9 mm adenomas. TSA analysis showed that AI-assisted technology significantly improved ADR across all adenoma size categories and effectively reduced AMR for lesions ≤ 5 mm.
conclusionAI-assisted techniques demonstrate higher diagnostic rates for adenomas of ≤ 5 mm, 6–9 mm, and ≥ 10 mm, with a notable reduction in AMR for lesions ≤ 5 mm. While AI can enhance diagnostic quality during colonoscopy, the overall evidence quality remains low, and potential publication bias warrants caution. Further large-scale RCTs are needed to confirm its clinical significance.
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.