Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41859674›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026

Reliable classification of polyps based on artificial intelligence: a development and validation study.

Frida M I Julbø, Audun L Henriksen, Manohar Pradhan, Erika K Lindstrøm, Ilyá Kostolomov, Dahmane Oukrif, Lisa van der Schee, Maria X Isaksen, Anthony Manet, Ole-Johan Skrede and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

21 authors.

Frida M I JulbøInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Audun L HenriksenInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Manohar PradhanInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Erika K LindstrømInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Ilyá KostolomovInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Dahmane OukrifResearch Department of Pathology, University College London, London, UK.
Lisa van der ScheeDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Maria X IsaksenInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Anthony ManetInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Ole-Johan SkredeInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Sepp De RaedtInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Knut LiestølInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Hanne A AskautrudInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Tor J EideDepartment of Pathology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Øyvind HolmeClinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
David J KerrNuffield Division of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Neil A ShepherdGloucestershire Cellular Pathology Laboratory, Cheltenham General Hospital, Cheltenham, UK.
Miangela M LacleDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Marco NovelliResearch Department of Pathology, University College London, London, UK.
Tarjei Sveinsgjerd HveemInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Andreas KleppeInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The shortage of pathologists presents a significant bottleneck in delivering timely and accurate diagnoses. To address this challenge, we developed the POLyp Artificial Intelligence-based RISk classifier (POLARIS), a prescreening tool designed to assist pathologists in handling the increasing volume of colorectal biopsies. Methods: Using 15,079 whole-slide images (WSIs) from 2993 patients in the UK bowel cancer screening program between 2014 and 2018 and the histological diagnoses as ground truth, POLARIS was developed applying the open-source foundation model H-optimus-0, multiple instance learning, and a training scheme designed to provide robust models. Each WSI was categorised into one of five classes based on the diagnosis, reflecting increasing risk of malignancy, and regrouped into two broader categories for clinical interpretation. One category includes only samples not requiring pathological review, specifically those classified as normal tissue or tubular adenomas with low-grade dysplasia (LGD). The second category includes all other types of polyps, which are polyps recommended for review by a pathologist. A prespecified validation protocol defined how a specific model should be evaluated on a geographically external dataset comprising 10,842 WSIs from Cheltenham General Hospital between 2008 and 2019 and acquired using two scanners, Leica Aperio AT2 and Hamamatsu NanoZoomer XR. After validation, three experienced pathologists independently assessed the cases in which model prediction differed most from clinical diagnosis and, blinded to model output, reached a consensus. Findings: In the external validation, POLARIS correctly identified 98.94% (95% CI 96.92-99.78%) of polyps with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and adenocarcinoma as POLARIS-positive, and correctly classified 83.04% (81.66-84.36%) of normal and tubular adenomas with LGD as POLARIS-negative. The overall balanced accuracy was 86.65% for this prespecified primary analysis. In the tuning set, balanced accuracy was 87.64%, the sensitivity for polyps with HGD and adenocarcinoma was 100% (95% CI 97.14-100), and the specificity for normal and tubular adenomas with LGD was 81.89% (79.94-83.70). POLARIS achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) in external validation of 0.9449 (95% CI 0.9384-0.9507) for distinguishing normal and tubular adenomas with LGD from polyps recommended for review by a pathologist and 0.9788 (0.9718-0.9844) for polyps with HGD and adenocarcinoma cases specifically. The model predicted the same class for both scanners in 97.93% (97.49-98.32%) of the cases. In the review of selected cases, the pathologists agreed with the model and not the clinical diagnosis in 92.5% of the cases. Heatmaps highlighting regions where the model indicates high-risk features closely correlated with areas annotated by expert pathologists as high-risk. Interpretation: POLARIS has the potential to enhance diagnostic workflows in colorectal pathology by reliably identifying high-risk lesions and highlighting high-risk regions while substantially reducing the number of slides requiring pathologist review. Funding: The Norwegian Cancer Society.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceColorectal cancerDigital pathologyPolyp classificationPrescreeningWhole-slide images

Identifiers

PMID41859674
PMCPMC12996234

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.