ReviewCureus2025
Effectiveness of the GI Genius Computer-Aided Detection System Versus Standard Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer prevention relies on high-quality colonoscopy, yet clinically relevant lesions are still missed. GI Genius is an FDA-cleared computer-aided detection (CADe) system that flags suspected polyps in real time. We conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-aligned systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in adults comparing GI Genius-assisted versus standard colonoscopy. PubMed, Ovid Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from the earliest available records in each database through August 25, 2025, with citation chasing. Seven trials (n = 9,639) met the eligibility criteria. Random-effects meta-analyses showed that GI Genius increased the adenoma detection rate (ADR) compared with standard colonoscopy (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.03-1.22; I²=64%). Secondary outcomes also favored GI Genius: polyp detection rate (PDR; two trials, n = 5,225; RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.10; I² = 0%), sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR; four trials, n = 7,013; RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.11-1.47; I² = 11%), and lesion counts (adenomas per colonoscopy/mean adenomas per patient, six trials, n = 9,253; standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.15, 95% CI 0.09-0.20; I² = 29%; polyps per colonoscopy/mean polyps, two trials, n = 5,228; SMD 0.10, 95% CI 0.05-0.15; I² = 0%). Advanced ADR (three trials, n=6,328) showed no significant difference (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90-1.13; I² = 6%). Safety reporting was limited and was not included in the meta-analysis. In summary, adjunctive GI Genius improves clinically meaningful detection, increasing ADR, PDR, SSLDR, and per-procedure lesion counts, without a detectable effect on advanced adenoma detection. These findings support routine activation of GI Genius during eligible colonoscopies, contingent on appropriate team training and consistent response to system prompts. Larger multicenter trials with standardized methods and long-term clinical endpoints are warranted.
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.