Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41906553›Full record

SynthesisDigestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society2026

Comparative Performance of Artificial Intelligence-Based Computer-Aided Detection Systems for Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Satoshi Shinozaki, Jun Watanabe, Takeshi Kanno, Katsuyuki Nakazawa, Tomonori Yano

Abstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-AnalysisComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.

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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Computer-Aided Detection Systems: Can Efficacy Be Evaluated as a Single Technological Concept?Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026
    Article
  4. How Does Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Endoscopy Impact Upper Gastrointestinal Screening?Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026
    Article
  5. Endoscopic Assessment and Management of Colorectal Serrated Lesions: Current Comparative Practice, Challenges, and Future Directions.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026
    Review
  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

5 authors.

Satoshi ShinozakiShinozaki Medical Clinic, Utsunomiya, Tochigi, Japan.
Jun WatanabeDivision of Gastroenterological, General and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, Jichi Medical University, Shimotsuke, Tochigi, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4477-4238
Takeshi KannoR & D Division of Career Education for Medical Professionals, Medical Education Center, Jichi Medical University, Shimotsuke, Tochigi, Japan.
Katsuyuki NakazawaJapan Community Health Care Organization Utsunomiya Hospital, Utsunomiya, Tochigi, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9493-3957
Tomonori YanoDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Jichi Medical University, Shimotsuke, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0160-432X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsComputer-aided detection (CADe) is anticipated to enhance adenoma detection rate (ADRs). The aim of this study was to systematically collect randomized-controlled trials comparing colonoscopy with CADe to standard colonoscopy without CADe in ADRs.

methodsWe performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials. Three electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. The primary outcome was the comparison of the performance of CADe systems in ADRs; the secondary outcome was the sessile serrated lesions detection rates (SSLDRs).

resultsA total of 48 randomized controlled trials involving 38,986 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Several CADe systems improved ADR compared with controls that ENDO-AID (risk ratio [RR] 1.26, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.14-1.40), CADEYE (RR 1.18, 95% CrI 1.10-1.26), and GI Genius (RR 1.15, 95% CrI 1.08-1.22) were supported by moderate confidence evidence according to the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). For SSLDR, ENDO-AID (RR 1.36, 95% CrI 1.03-1.79) and GI Genius (RR 1.25, 95% CrI 1.08-1.46) may offer improved detection compared with controls. Across multiple sensitivity analyses excluding studies by withdrawal time, conflicts of interest, limited study numbers, image-enhanced endoscopy, non-parallel design, single-center settings, operator experience, or earlier publication years, the direction and magnitude of ADR improvements with CADe systems remained largely consistent with the primary analysis.

conclusionsBased on the CINeMA framework, the certainty of evidence ranged from low to moderate, indicating that some CADe systems are likely to improve ADR.

Indexed as

AdenomaArtificial IntelligenceColonic PolypsColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedBayes TheoremHumansIntelligent SystemsRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicartificial intelligencecolonoscopycolorectal polypcomputer‐aided detectionendoscopy

Identifiers

PMID41906553
PMCPMC13033948

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.