RESUMO
BACKGROUND/AIMS: This study aims to compare polyp detection performance of "Deep-GI," a newly developed artificial intelligence (AI) model, to a previously validated AI model computer-aided polyp detection (CADe) using various false positive (FP) thresholds and determining the best threshold for each model. METHODS: Colonoscopy videos were collected prospectively and reviewed by three expert endoscopists (gold standard), trainees, CADe (CAD EYE; Fujifilm Corp.), and Deep-GI. Polyp detection sensitivity (PDS), polyp miss rates (PMR), and false-positive alarm rates (FPR) were compared among the three groups using different FP thresholds for the duration of bounding boxes appearing on the screen. RESULTS: In total, 170 colonoscopy videos were used in this study. Deep-GI showed the highest PDS (99.4% vs. 85.4% vs. 66.7%, p<0.01) and the lowest PMR (0.6% vs. 14.6% vs. 33.3%, p<0.01) when compared to CADe and trainees, respectively. Compared to CADe, Deep-GI demonstrated lower FPR at FP thresholds of ≥0.5 (12.1 vs. 22.4) and ≥1 second (4.4 vs. 6.8) (both p<0.05). However, when the threshold was raised to ≥1.5 seconds, the FPR became comparable (2 vs. 2.4, p=0.3), while the PMR increased from 2% to 10%. CONCLUSION: Compared to CADe, Deep-GI demonstrated a higher PDS with significantly lower FPR at ≥0.5- and ≥1-second thresholds. At the ≥1.5-second threshold, both systems showed comparable FPR with increased PMR.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the benefits of a self-developed computer-aided polyp detection system (SD-CADe) and a commercial system (CM-CADe) for high adenoma detectors compared with white-light endoscopy (WLE) as a control. METHODS: Average-risk 50-75-year-old individuals who underwent screening colonoscopy at five referral centers were randomized to SD-CADe, CM-CADe, or WLE groups (1:1:1 ratio). Trainees and staff with an adenoma detection rate (ADR) of ≥35% were recruited. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were the proximal adenoma detection rate (pADR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), and the number of adenomas, proximal adenomas, and advanced adenomas per colonoscopy (APC, pAPC, and AAPC, respectively). RESULTS: The study enrolled 1200 participants. The ADR in the control, CM-CADe, and SD-CADe groups was 38.3%, 50.0%, and 54.8%, respectively. The pADR was 23.0%, 32.3%, and 38.8%, respectively. AADR was 6.0%, 10.3%, and 9.5%, respectively. After adjustment, the ADR and pADR in both intervention groups were significantly higher than in controls (all P<0.05). The APC in the control, CM-CADe, and SD-CADe groups was 0.66, 1.04, and 1.16, respectively. The pAPC was 0.33, 0.53, and 0.64, respectively, and the AAPC was 0.07, 0.12, and 0.10, respectively. Both CADe systems showed significantly higher APC and pAPC than WLE. AADR and AAPC were improved in both CADe groups versus control, although the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Even in high adenoma detectors, CADe significantly improved ADR and APC. The AADR tended to be higher with both systems, and this may enhance colorectal cancer prevention.