The impact of artificial intelligence on the adenoma detection rate : Comparison between experienced, intermediate and trainee endoscopists' adenoma detection rate.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Sebastian Bernhofer, Julian Prosenz, David Venturi, Andreas Maieron
{"title":"The impact of artificial intelligence on the adenoma detection rate : Comparison between experienced, intermediate and trainee endoscopists' adenoma detection rate.","authors":"Sebastian Bernhofer, Julian Prosenz, David Venturi, Andreas Maieron","doi":"10.1007/s00508-025-02561-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI) is a promising tool to achieve a high adenoma detection rate (ADR). The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of a computer-aided detection (CADe) device on the ADRs of endoscopists with different levels of expertise.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were collected from patients who underwent colonoscopy with CADe within a 12-month period. Endoscopists were divided into three groups, a trainee group (< 500 colonoscopies), an intermediate group (500-1000 colonoscopies) and an expert group (> 2000 colonoscopies). Endoscopists with the same definition of experience without CADe support served as the control cohort. For the differences in ADR between the groups a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) and odds ratios (OR) were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In this study 335 patients (155 females, 177 males) with a mean age 62.1 years (SD ± 16.2 years) were included in the CADe cohort. In this cohort 508 polyps were resected. The ADRs for the groups and control groups (without CADe) were as follows: 42.9% (95% CI: 28.5-57.2%) and 21.5% (95% CI: 11.3-31.8%) in the trainee group, 41.3% (95% CI: 33.5-49.0%) and 36.8% (95% CI: 27.9-45.6%) in the intermediate group and 39.8% (95% CI: 30.9-48.8%) and 33.3% (95% CI: 26.3-40.4%) in the expert group. There were no significant differences among the CADe groups when trainees were compared to experts (p = 0.72, OR 1.13, 95% CI: 0.58-2.16) or when intermediate endoscopists were compared to experts (p = 0.81, OR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.65-1.74).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of AI appears to provide an opportunity to match the ADR-based quality of colonoscopy at an early stage of endoscopy training with experts.</p>","PeriodicalId":23861,"journal":{"name":"Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00508-025-02561-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is a promising tool to achieve a high adenoma detection rate (ADR). The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of a computer-aided detection (CADe) device on the ADRs of endoscopists with different levels of expertise.

Methods: Data were collected from patients who underwent colonoscopy with CADe within a 12-month period. Endoscopists were divided into three groups, a trainee group (< 500 colonoscopies), an intermediate group (500-1000 colonoscopies) and an expert group (> 2000 colonoscopies). Endoscopists with the same definition of experience without CADe support served as the control cohort. For the differences in ADR between the groups a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) and odds ratios (OR) were calculated.

Results: In this study 335 patients (155 females, 177 males) with a mean age 62.1 years (SD ± 16.2 years) were included in the CADe cohort. In this cohort 508 polyps were resected. The ADRs for the groups and control groups (without CADe) were as follows: 42.9% (95% CI: 28.5-57.2%) and 21.5% (95% CI: 11.3-31.8%) in the trainee group, 41.3% (95% CI: 33.5-49.0%) and 36.8% (95% CI: 27.9-45.6%) in the intermediate group and 39.8% (95% CI: 30.9-48.8%) and 33.3% (95% CI: 26.3-40.4%) in the expert group. There were no significant differences among the CADe groups when trainees were compared to experts (p = 0.72, OR 1.13, 95% CI: 0.58-2.16) or when intermediate endoscopists were compared to experts (p = 0.81, OR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.65-1.74).

Conclusion: The use of AI appears to provide an opportunity to match the ADR-based quality of colonoscopy at an early stage of endoscopy training with experts.

人工智能对腺瘤检出率的影响:经验丰富、中级和见习内窥镜医师腺瘤检出率的比较
背景:人工智能(AI)是实现高腺瘤检出率(ADR)的有前途的工具。本研究的目的是评估计算机辅助检测(CADe)设备对不同专业水平内窥镜医师不良反应的影响。方法:收集在12个月内使用CADe进行结肠镜检查的患者的数据。内窥镜医师分为三组,实习组( 2000次)。内窥镜医师具有相同的经验定义,但没有CADe支持,作为对照组。对于两组间不良反应的差异,计算双侧95%置信区间(CI)和优势比(OR)。结果:在这项研究中,335例患者(155名女性,177名男性)被纳入CADe队列,平均年龄为62.1岁(SD ±16.2岁)。在这个队列中,切除了508个息肉。实验组和对照组(无CADe)的不良反应发生率分别为:受训组42.9% (95% CI: 28.5-57.2%)和21.5% (95% CI: 11.3-31.8%),中间组41.3% (95% CI: 33.5-49.0%)和36.8% (95% CI: 27.9-45.6%),专家组39.8% (95% CI: 30.9-48.8%)和33.3% (95% CI: 26.3-40.4%)。受训人员与专家比较(p = 0.72,OR 1.13, 95% CI: 0.58-2.16)或中级内窥镜医师与专家比较(p = 0.81,OR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.65-1.74), CADe组间无显著差异。结论:人工智能的使用似乎提供了一个机会,在内窥镜专家培训的早期阶段,与基于不良反应的结肠镜检查质量相匹配。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift
Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
3.80%
发文量
110
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Wiener klinische Wochenschrift - The Central European Journal of Medicine - is an international scientific medical journal covering the entire spectrum of clinical medicine and related areas such as ethics in medicine, public health and the history of medicine. In addition to original articles, the Journal features editorials and leading articles on newly emerging topics, review articles, case reports and a broad range of special articles. Experimental material will be considered for publication if it is directly relevant to clinical medicine. The number of international contributions has been steadily increasing. Consequently, the international reputation of the journal has grown in the past several years. Founded in 1888, the Wiener klinische Wochenschrift - The Central European Journal of Medicine - is certainly one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world and takes pride in having been the first publisher of landmarks in medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信