ArticleEndoscopy international open2026
Diagnostic performance of real-time characterization in artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: Because most colorectal polyps are diminutive and carry minimal cancer risk, artificial intelligence (AI) might enable diagnostic strategies such as leave-in-situ and resect-and-discard, provided it meets predefined quality benchmarks. We assessed diagnostic performance of a computer-aided polyp characterization system (CADx) in predicting histology of diminutive rectosigmoid polyps during colonoscopy in a Danish population. Patients and methods: We conducted a prospective diagnostic accuracy study across four endoscopy centers. Adults referred for colonoscopy due to a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT), surveillance, or other diagnostic indications were included. Patients with inadequate bowel preparation were excluded. Histopathology served as the reference standard and all polyps were categorized as adenomas or non-adenomas. Several performance metrics are reported. Results: We included 278 patients and a total of 772 polypectomies for analysis. For diminutive rectosigmoid polyps (n = 184), the CADx-system achieved a sensitivity of 93% (95% confidence interval [CI] 87%-97%) and a specificity of 33% (95% CI 22%-46%). Positive and negative predictive values were 70% (95% CI 62%-77%) and 74% (95% CI 55%-88%), respectively, with an overall accuracy of 71% (95% CI 64%-77%) and a diagnostic odds ratio of 6.69. Conclusions: The CADx-system demonstrated high sensitivity, but significantly lower specificity compared with prior studies, driven by a high false-positive rate. Inconsistent findings across studies highlight the challenges in standardizing AI-based characterization systems. Our results indicates that CADx is a promising future adjunct to colonoscopy, but its current performance is insufficient for reliable implementation in resect-and-discard or leave-in-situ strategies.
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.