Performance comparison between two computer-aided detection colonoscopy models by trainees using different false positive thresholds: a cross-sectional study in Thailand.

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.

Improvement of adenoma detection rate by two computer-aided colonic polyp detection systems in high adenoma detectors: a randomized multicenter trial.

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.

Computer-aided detection, mucosal exposure device, their combination, and standard colonoscopy for adenoma detection: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Computer-aided detection (CADe) and a mucosal exposure device can improve adenoma detection rate (ADR). Potential benefits of combining the 2 modalities have never been studied. This study aimed to compare ADR differences among CADe alone, endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) alone, and the combination of CADe and EAC (CADe+EAC) with standard colonoscopy. METHODS: This prospective randomized controlled study included 1245 participants who underwent screening colonoscopy. Participants were randomized to CADe, EAC, CADe+EAC, and standard colonoscopy as a control. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were proximal ADR (pADR), advanced ADR (AADR), and the number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APCs). RESULTS: ADRs from the control, CADe, EAC, and CADe+EAC groups were 41.9%, 52.2%, 54.0%, and 58.8%, respectively; pADRs were 25.2%, 33.3%, 34.9%, and 37.0%, respectively; AADRs were 7.7%, 8.3%, 8.3%, and 13.6%, respectively; and APCs were .76, 1.11, 1.18, and 1.31, respectively. Significant increases in ADR and pADR were observed between the intervention and control groups (P < .05 in all comparisons). The AADR was significantly higher only in the CADe+EAC group than in the control group (P = .02). The adjusted incidence rate ratios of APCs were significantly higher in the intervention groups versus the control group (P < .01 in all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: CADe+EAC significantly improve ADR and AADR over standard colonoscopy. However, although CADe or EAC alone can substantially increase the detection of adenomas, they do not lead to increased detection of advanced adenomas unless used in combination. (Clinical trial registration number: TCTR20200929003.).

Autoimmune Hepatitis Triggered by COVID-19 Vaccine: The First Case From Inactivated Vaccine.

We report a case of a 52-year-old woman without previous underlying liver disease, presenting with progressive jaundice and diagnosed with autoimmune hepatitis after 2 doses of an inactivated coronavirus disease 2019 (CoronaVac) vaccine. All serology and histology were compatible with autoimmune hepatitis. Symptoms were improved and liver function tests were normalized after treatment with steroids and azathioprine.