Observational studyArquivos de gastroenterologia2025
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN COLONOSCOPY: EVALUATION OF ADENOMA DETECTION RATE AND PERFORMANCE CHARACTERIZATION.
Observational study in Arquivos de gastroenterologia, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveColonoscopy is a known tool for diagnosing precursor lesions of colorectal cancer. The use of AI has the potential to enhance the detection of these lesions. The aim of this study is to compare the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in colonoscopies performed with and without AI software.
methodsAn observational study was conducted in the endoscopy department with the contribution of the gastroenterology, coloproctology and pathology services, all from a tertiary hospital in the southern region of Brazil. A total of 305 patients undergoing screening colonoscopy were evaluated. Patients were scheduled for colonoscopy through random assignment to procedure rooms with high definition conventional colonoscopy (CC) or with "Cadeye" (CADe) system. The metrics associated with patients, the procedure and polyps' features were recorded.
resultsOf 305 colonoscopies, 112 were in the CADe system and 193 in the CC. 470 polyps were detected. The overall ADR was 53.8% and the overall polyp detection was 74.8%. There was no difference in the ADR between CC and CADe (57% vs 48.2%, respectively. P=0.138).
conclusionsAlthough data argue for an increase in ADR with AI systems, our study did not show difference between conventional colonoscopy or AI. These findings suggest that, in settings with high ADR, the added benefit of AI may be limited.
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.