Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41449203›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025

A novel cloud-based artificial intelligence for real-time detection of colorectal neoplasia - a randomized controlled trial (EAGLE).

Rawen Kader, Cesare Hassan, Ángel Lanas, Marcin Romańczyk, Tomasz Romańczyk, Bronisław Kotowski, Carlos Sostres Homedes, Benedetto Mangiavillano, Giacomo Bonanno, Laurence B Lovat and 3 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05730192 (Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence for Detection of Gastrointestinal Lesions in Endoscopy), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05730192 nacompletednot on this map

Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence for Detection of Gastrointestinal Lesions in Endoscopy (EAGLE)

TypeinterventionalSponsorOdin MedicalRan2023 to 2023Enrolled985ConditionsColorectal Cancer, Polyp of Colon, Adenoma ColonArmsCADDIE
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. How Does Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Endoscopy Impact Upper Gastrointestinal Screening?Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Rawen Kader *Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK. rawen.kader.17@ucl.ac.uk.
Cesare Hassan *Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy.
Ángel LanasInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria Aragón, Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de La Salud, CIBEREHD, Zaragoza, Spain.
Marcin RomańczykDepartment of Gastroenterology, Faculty of Medicine, Academy of Silesia, Katowice, Poland.
Tomasz RomańczykDepartment of Gastroenterology, Faculty of Medicine, Academy of Silesia, Katowice, Poland.
Bronisław KotowskiDepartment of Gastroenterological Oncology, The M. Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland.
Carlos Sostres HomedesGastroenterology, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Zaragoza, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Aragón, Universidad de Zaragoza, CIBEREHD, Zaragoza, Spain.
Benedetto MangiavillanoGastrointestinal Endoscopy, Istituto Clinico Mater Domini Casa di Cura Privata SpA, Castellanza, Italy.
Giacomo BonannoEndoscopy Unit, Humanitas Istituto Clinico Catanese, Catania, Italy.
Laurence B LovatDivision of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Michał KamińskiDepartment of Oncological Gastroenterology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland.
Siegbert FaissDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sana Klinikum Lichtenberg, Berlin, Germany.
Alessandro RepiciDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previously, colorectal polyp computer-aided detection (CADe) systems required on-site high-performance hardware installations (e.g., FPGAs/GPUs), creating practical challenges to upgrades and tying hospitals to legacy hardware. Cloud-based CADe solutions overcome these constraints. Hospitals can use low-specification/low-cost hardware to stream data to the cloud for analysis, enabling frequent AI hardware and algorithm updates. Furthermore, existing CADe systems' benefits are largely limited to smaller, less clinically relevant polyps ( < 10 mm). This parallel-group RCT evaluated a real-time cloud-deployed CADe-system trained on an enhanced dataset of clinically significant polyps (large polyps( ≥ 10 mm) and sessile-serrated-lesions(SSLs)). Patients from eight centers across four European countries (841 patients, 22 endoscopists) were randomized to standard or CADe-assisted colonoscopy. Co-primary endpoints were (1) superior Adenomas Per-Colonoscopy (APC), (2) non-inferior Positive Percent-Agreement (PPA) (proportion of resections confirmed as clinically relevant polyps). CADe improved (p < 0.05): APC (0.82 vs. 0.62, Ratio 1.33[95% CI 1.06-1.67]), adenoma detection-rate (43.2% vs. 35.9%), SSL (0.08 vs. 0.03, Ratio 3.30[95% CI 1.41-7.57]), and large polyp (0.12 vs. 0.05, Ratio 2.36[95% CI 1.33-4.17]) detection. PPA was non-inferior, and average cloud-network latency was 59.4 ms per minute, with 99.6% under the 100 ms threshold required for real-time use. This RCT demonstrates the feasibility and efficacy of a real-time cloud-based CADe system, with promising outcomes for clinically significant polyps (large polyps and SSLs). Future research should explore optimizing CADe systems' performance. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05730192[15/02/2023]).

Identifiers

PMID41449203
PMCPMC12852673

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.