Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41647618›Full record

ArticleiGIE : innovation, investigation and insights2023

Development of an artificial intelligence tool for detecting colorectal lesions in inflammatory bowel disease.

Daniela Guerrero Vinsard, Jeffrey R Fetzer, Upasana Agrawal, Jassimran Singh, Devanshi N Damani, Priyadharshini Sivasubramaniam, Shivaram Poigai Arunachalam, Cadman L Leggett, Laura E Raffals, Nayantara Coelho-Prabhu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. New Technologies for IBD Endoscopy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

10 authors.

Daniela Guerrero VinsardDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Jeffrey R FetzerDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Upasana AgrawalDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Jassimran SinghDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Devanshi N DamaniDepartment of Internal Medicine Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso, Texas, USA.
Priyadharshini SivasubramaniamDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Shivaram Poigai ArunachalamDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Cadman L LeggettDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Laura E RaffalsDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Nayantara Coelho-PrabhuDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: Artificial intelligence has the potential to enhance the endoscopist's ability to detect polypoid and nonpolypoid dysplasia, which could result in decreased rates of colorectal cancer in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We aimed to develop the first known model for computer-aided detection (CADe) of colorectal lesions in patients with IBD. Methods: A CADe model developed at our institution with colorectal lesions from patients without IBD was tested for baseline performance in a dataset of high-definition white-light endoscopy (HDWLE) images of IBD-associated colorectal lesions. Subsequently, we retrained the original CADe to build an IBD-CADe model using 1266 HDWLE still images and 426 dye-based chromoendoscopy still images depicting histologically proven IBD-associated colorectal lesions. The lesions were annotated by histopathology, size, morphology, and inflammation score surrounding the lesion. We evaluated the model's performance metrics before and after retraining. Results: The sensitivity of the original CADe was 50%, positive predictive value (PPV) was 97%, and accuracy was 64%. With the retrained IBD-CADe model, performance metrics for detecting lesions on HDWLE were as follows: sensitivity, 95.1%; specificity, 98.8%; PPV, 98.9%; negative predictive value, 94.7%; accuracy, 96.8%; and area under the curve, .85. IBD-CADe for chromoendoscopy images showed a sensitivity of 67.4%, specificity of 88.0%, PPV of 83.3%, negative predictive value of 74.3%, accuracy of 77.8%, and area under the curve of .65. Subgroup analysis showed a 93% sensitivity for detecting lesions 5 mm or smaller, 91% for lesions 6 to 10 mm, and 85% for those larger than 10 mm. IBD-CADe performed best for Paris classification types Ip, Is, and IIa. Of 9 lesions missed by IBD-CADe, most had a Mayo endoscopic subscore of 0 or 1. Conclusions: This model is the first step toward developing other artificial intelligence-based endoscopic tools to enhance dysplasia detection for patients with IBD.

Identifiers

PMID41647618
PMCPMC12850770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.